Datasets:

vgoldberg

/

6k-longform-summ

like 0

About Clippit, better known as Clippy, is the default animated character in the English Windows version of Microsoft Office Assistant, an interactive user's guide that came pre-installed with Microsoft Office bundles from 1997-2003. Due to its impractical and intrusive nature, Clippy quickly became a subject of mockery among Office users, inspiring a series of satirical images and parodies addressing its overall incompetence. Origin Clippy, a paperclip with googly eyes and expressive eyebrows, was designed by Kevan J. Atteberry to serve as a user-friendly troubleshooter for people using Office applications including Word and Excel. For instance, typing an address followed by "Dear" would cause Clippy to pop up with and a variety of pre-determined messages, including "Hey! It looks like you're writing a letter!" before offering to help walk you through the process. Spread While Clippy was intended to be helpful, it was widely regarded as a failure by many users, developers and tech reviewers alike. By the following year, Microsoft product managers who knew Office Assistant had failed publicly "executed" Clippy at the Professional Developers Conference held in Denver, demonstrating how to get rid of it using a Visual Basic code. Upon execution, the paper clip said, "I'm melting, I'm melting" and then disappeared. In July 2000, it was first parodied on the webcomic User Friendly. To prepare for the launch of Windows XP in May 2001, Microsoft announced that Clippy would no longer be needed since the new operating system would be so easy to use. They launched a campaign with actor Gilbert Gottfried as the voice of the paperclip, allowing people to vote on Clippy's next career choice as well as a song titled "It Looks Like You're Writing a Letter." The campaign was covered on Cnet and the Guardian. Over the next several years, angry threads about Clippy appeared on a variety of message boards including the Straight Dope , the Open Office Forum and the official Linux forums. In 2003, a Stanford student named Luke Swartz completed an honors thesis on why people hated Clippy , finding that its joking behavior greatly affected people's perception of it. The following year, Clippy began appearing on YTMND with the first instance earning nearly 4000 views. In 2009, tech blog Technologizer compiled a history of Clippy, including older versions of the office assistant that were patented but never hit the public. Thirteen years after its original release, TIME declared Clippy one of the 50 worst inventions of all time. Notable Videos Return of Clippy In April 2011, Microsoft reintroduced Clippy in the game Ribbon Hero 2 , an educational game featured as an add-on for Office that taught users how to find certain commands in the program. A year later, Smore released Clippy.js , a Javascript version of the Office Assistant, including Clippy, that people could embed into any website. The script was featured on Geekwire and Techcrunch. Search Interest External References ||||| Leaders of the nation’s biggest technology firms warned President Obama during a lengthy meeting at the White House on Tuesday that National Security Agency spying programs are damaging their reputations and could harm the broader economy. Cisco Systems has said it is seeing customers, especially overseas, back away from American-branded technology after documents revealed that the NSA enlisted tech firms and secretly tapped into their data hubs around the world as the agency pursued terrorism suspects. Companies such as IBM, AT&T and Verizon Communications are facing angry shareholders, some of whom have filed lawsuits demanding that the companies disclose their participation in NSA intelligence programs. The companies also pressed the need for transparency and for limits on surveillance to restore the credibility of the U.S. government. They wanted an explanation of what the NSA was doing overseas to collect their data and to be able to talk about it, said industry and U.S. officials briefed on the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it freely. “Most companies” in the room pressed this point, “and they did so loudly,” said one U.S. official. Obama said that he heard their message and that the White House would consider the group’s views as it completed a review of NSA surveillance programs. Silicon Valley has been a critical driver of the economic recovery and has long represented the face of American ingenuity around the world. Many of these companies say they are still trying to assess the damage caused by Edward Snowden’s leak of NSA documents showing their work with intelligence officials. But some shareholders say Silicon Valley has been slow to recognize the reputational crisis that is developing around the world for these companies. “Verizon and AT&T are not managing this crisis effectively,” said Jonas Kron, director of shareholder advocacy at Trillium, an investment advisory firm. “Now is the time for these companies to demonstrate that they will protect user privacy.” The morning meeting at the White House, held in the Roosevelt Room, took on added import given a federal judge’s ruling Monday that the NSA’s counterterrorism program to collect Americans’ phone records appears to be unconstitutional. That, along with the outcry from Silicon Valley and civil liberties advocates, some of whom belong to Obama’s party, is increasing pressure on the administration to curb NSA surveillance efforts. The gathering was scheduled for two hours but went well over the allotted time, with the majority of the discussion focused on the companies’ demands for changes to NSA spying programs, according to tech industry officials. Several of the executives came to the meeting particularly angered over a Washington Post report in late October that revealed the NSA and its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, or GCHQ, were gaining access to the data connections that link Google and Yahoo servers around the world, industry officials said. Their message was to say: “What the hell are you doing? Are you really hacking into the infrastructure of American companies overseas? The same American companies that cooperate with your lawful orders and spend a lot of money to comply with them to facilitate your intelligence collection?” said one industry official familiar with the companies’ views. The NSA has stressed that its overseas collection is carried out lawfully, under executive authority. Any data on Americans are handled according to rules that protect their privacy, including the requirement to obtain a warrant to target an American’s communications, officials say. In the meeting, the executives reiterated a list of demands that had been sent to the White House in a letter last week calling on the administration to cease bulk data collection of e-mails, online address books and other personal information; to impose limits on how easily the NSA can obtain court orders for Internet data; and to allow the companies to be more transparent about government intelligence requests. Several participants acknowledged that the White House had to balance the companies’ business concerns against national security considerations. Senior administration officials described the meeting with the 15 executives as “constructive, not at all contentious.” “This was an opportunity for the President to hear from CEOs directly as we near completion of our review of signals intelligence programs, building on the feedback we’ve received from the private sector in recent weeks and months,” the White House said in a statement. One participant suggested the president pardon Snowden. Obama said he could not do so, said one industry official. White House officials have said that Snowden is accused of leaking classified information and faces felony charges in the United States, and that he should be returned as soon as possible to the United States, “where he will be accorded full due process and protections.” Senior executives from AT&T, Yahoo, Apple, Netflix, Twitter, Google, Microsoft and Facebook were among those in attendance. “We appreciated the opportunity to share directly with the President our principles on government surveillance that we released last week and we urged him to move aggressively on reform,” the technology firms said in a joint statement after the meeting. Many of these firms have played a key role in boosting Obama’s political fortunes. Tech companies pumped nearly $7.8 million into his campaign in the last cycle, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Some of the top officials meeting with the president Tuesday served as bundlers for his 2012 bid. Yahoo’s chief executive, Marissa Mayer, raised between $100,000 and $200,000, according to the center, and Shervin Pish­evar, co-founder of the Sherpa technology investment fund, raised more than $500,000. Mark Pincus, Zynga’s chief product officer and chairman, gave $1 million to Priorities Action USA, the super PAC that supported Obama. Still, some of these executives, as well as their shareholders, are fretting about the ­bottom-line impact of the NSA intelligence programs. In Cisco’s earnings report last month, executives explained that disappointing sales in emerging markets were partly tied to the NSA leaks, which may have “caused a number of customers to pause and reevaluate,” Cisco’s head of sales, Robert Lloyd, said at the time. Last week, IBM shareholders sued the company in a New York federal court, saying that it harmed investors with its secret participation in NSA programs. “IBM’s association with the NSA presented a material risk to the company’s sales and, in particular . . . sales in China that were of critical importance to investors,” the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Pension and Relief Fund said in its lawsuit. “Despite that knowledge . . . IBM misrepresented to investors that it was a market leader in the Asia-Pacific region and that IBM expected solid improvement in the sales of its hardware division.” Last month, shareholders of Verizon and AT&T demanded that the companies disclose their participation in NSA intelligence programs. The $160.7 billion New York State Common Retirement Fund filed a resolution with AT&T’s board to make public its participation in government intelligence programs. The pension fund argued that customers can too easily switch to another wireless carrier amid concerns that AT&T is sharing telephone data and other information with the government. The meeting at the White House was the second time top Silicon Valley and telecommunications leaders have convened with Obama since Snowden began to release portions of a trove of top-secret documents detailing NSA spying programs. Obama tried to keep the tenor friendly, even cracking jokes, an industry official said. At one point, he asked Netflix chief executive Reed Hastings if he brought advanced copies of the second season of “House of Cards,” a satire-drama of Washington politics, according to a pool report of the meeting. Hastings laughed and invited Obama to do a cameo appearance on the show. Obama said of the ruthless lead character, a congressman played by Kevin Spacey, “This guy’s getting a lot of stuff done.” “I wish things were that ruthlessly efficient,” Obama said, to laughter from all the tech executives. Juliet Eilperin and Matea Gold contributed to this report. ||||| Barack Obama had a bunch of CEOs from major tech companies to the White House to talk about the Healthcare website, NSA, and other topics. According to Politico, Obama was mostly interested in talking about Healthcare, while the Silicon Valley folks were mostly interested in talking about the NSA. We're not really sure how much either side gets out of these meetings, but it's good for optics, we suppose. And speaking of optics, here's a clip of Obama saying to Netflix CEO Reed Hastings that he wants an advanced copy of next season's House of Cards. ||||| AP Photos Tech giants get Obama's ear on NSA Tech leaders took full advantage of their White House invitation Tuesday, sidestepping a conversation on HealthCare.gov and federal acquisition for one on NSA and surveillance reform. The White House billed the president’s conversation with industry executives as a discussion largely focused on the Obamacare website and the problems hindering federal IT. But tech bigwigs used the meeting to highlight another agenda item — how the bulk collection of Internet data crossed legal lines and threatened their livelihood. Story Continued Below “We appreciate the opportunity to share directly with the president our principles on government surveillance that we released last week and we urge him to move aggressively on reform,” a number of tech companies said in a joint statement. ( Also on POLITICO: Klayman: 'We hit the mother lode') Tech titans such as Google, Facebook and Microsoft signed onto a letter last week signaling their most vocal frustration yet towards National Security Agency data grabs, particularly the collection of bulk Internet information. All but one, AOL, attended the event. Obama met for more than an hour with 15 executives, including Apple CEO Tim Cook, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Twitter CEO Dick Costolo, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt and Microsoft Vice President Brad Smith. “HealthCare.gov and government acquisition was first on the invitation and second was NSA dislosures and the implications of that,” said Information Technology and Industry Council President Dean Garfield, who did not attend the meeting although his member companies did. “But the tone and the amount of time that was spent was the reverse of that.” The visit occurs a day after a federal judge ruled NSA’s practice of scooping up American phone records violated the Constitution. A representative for one of the participating companies said the judge’s decision further reinforced their plans to talk reform. ( Also on POLITICO: NSA ruling fallout hits White House) Their meeting also follows the release of recommendations from a presidential task force about the NSA’s authority. The group suggests telecom companies, rather than the agency, store millions of American phone records. Industry despises the idea and has long fought it. Administration officials plan to finish analyzing the recommendations in January, after which point they will make the group’s report public. These companies may pine for greater governmental transparency, but they also have a business interest in assuring customers around the world feel safe using their services. Almost half of the leaders present affiliated themselves with the letter and a loose coalition pushing for global government surveillance reform. Garfield said the conversation hinged on many of their principles, including limits to what governments can require companies to disclose, a framework for evaluating data requests and ways to provide adequate accountability. “These meetings have a certain youthful life and they usually go away an hour after the meeting,” Garfield said. “The thing that is most surprising is not the discussion that happened in the room but the discussion that happened with tech companies before, and the discussion afterward.” (Also on POLITICO: Harry Reid open to NSA legislation) AOL, which signed its name to the December letter, did not specify why it did not attend Tuesday but said its views “are well-represented by the group in attendance.” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Tuesday played down any tensions. “This just raises some of the concerns that the tech companies have raised in the wake of the disclosures,” he said. The group, Carney added, discussed the “national security and economic impacts” of “unauthorized” disclosures. Obama also “made clear his belief in an open, free and innovative Internet and listened to the group’s concerns and recommendations,” according to a White House breakdown of the meeting, “and made clear that we will consider their input as well as input of other outside stakeholders as we finalize our review of signals intelligence programs.” The conversation started, at least, with laughter. ( Also on POLITICO: Judge: NSA phone program likely unconstitutional) “I’m just wondering if you brought advance copies of ‘House of Cards’?” Obama said to Netflix head Reed Hastings. The executive chuckled and invited the president to show up for a cameo, according to a pool report. “I wish things were that ruthlessly efficient,” Obama said in reference to the show and its Machiavellian lead character. “This guy’s getting a lot of stuff done.” This marks the first public outreach to leaders since the website’s meltdown. The administration promised a “tech surge” to help fix the website after its clunky rollout, but few Silicon Valley hotshots participated in the clean-up. The president discussed HealthCare.gov issues this November at the San Francisco home of Salesforce founder Mark Benioff during a private event with Democratic donors. Obama on Tuesday also told executives he has tapped Microsoft executive Kurt DelBene as the next website manager. Jeff Zients, the current leader, will assume his planned role as National Economic Council director. Obama has blasted the federal procurement system in recent months but not indicated specific steps to address a “systemic problem that we have across the board.” Other attendees Tuesday included AT&T Randall Stephenson, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts, Etsy CEO Chad Dickerson, Dropbox CEO Drew Houston, Salesforce chief legal officer Burke Norton, Zynga founder Mark Pincus, Sherpa Global co-CEO Shervin Pishevar, and LinkedIn Vice President Erika Rottenberg. Tony Romm and Jonathan Allen contributed to this report. ||||| Former Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) executive Kurt DelBene was named to replace Jeffrey Zients as the manager of the U.S. health-insurance enrollment system, as Zients prepares to take over as White House chief economic adviser. DelBene, 53, most recently the president of the Microsoft division responsible for its Office software, will take over tomorrow as head of the effort to improve the federal health exchange, the Department of Health and Human Services announced. Zients has been credited for leading a six-week repair that salvaged the bug-ridden, error-prone system, including the healthcare.gov website. The online insurance marketplace is a critical component of President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul as the administration seeks to provide medical coverage for an estimated 48 million uninsured Americans. DelBene “has proven expertise in heading large, complex technology teams and in product development,” U.S. Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said in a blog post. “He will be a tremendous asset in our work.” DelBene spent 21 years at Microsoft. He is married to U.S. Representative Suzan DelBene, a Democrat from Washington state, who also is a former Microsoft executive. He announced his retirement from Redmond, Washington-based Microsoft in July after a companywide reorganization that merged the Office business with the search engine and gave oversight of that unit to a different executive. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg Kurt DelBene, most recently the president of the Microsoft Corp. division responsible for its Office software, will take over tomorrow as head of the effort to improve the federal health exchange. Close Kurt DelBene, most recently the president of the Microsoft Corp. division responsible... Read More Close Open Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg Kurt DelBene, most recently the president of the Microsoft Corp. division responsible for its Office software, will take over tomorrow as head of the effort to improve the federal health exchange. Selecting Plans About 137,000 people have used the federal system to select health plans in 36 states under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Almost four times as many people signed up in November, when the website was under repair, as in October, when most users were stymied by technical errors that prevented enrollment. About 365,000 people have signed up for private health plans under the law so far, including 227,000 in 14 states that are running their own enrollment systems led by California. Seven Democratic U.S. senators led by Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire wrote Obama on Nov. 26 and urged him to appoint a permanent chief executive for the federal system after Zients moves to the White House. Sebelius said DelBene’s appointment “reflects ideas from key stakeholders” including the senators. Zients is scheduled to take over in February as Obama’s director of the National Economic Council, White House press secretary Jay Carney said today. Senator’s Support U.S. Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat who signed Shaheen’s letter, said that DelBene’s appointment is “welcome news” for consumers. Colorado built an enrollment system and website for its residents, and had signed up about 10,000 people in private plans by the end of November. “Although Colorado’s health exchange has not experienced the difficulties of healthcare.gov, Mr. DelBene’s appointment is a good step toward achieving the goal of giving all consumers -- regardless of where they live -- a functioning marketplace to find and compare health plans,” Udall said in a statement. DelBene will be a senior adviser to Sebelius and he has agreed to serve in the role at least through the first half of 2014, she said. He is “essentially serving as an unpaid adviser” and will donate his $119,554 salary back to the U.S. Treasury, Viet Shelton, a spokesman for Suzan DelBene’s office, said in an e-mail. Suzan DelBene reported in a financial disclosure required of members of Congress that her family had assets of $24 million to $70 million in 2012, and investment income from $612,000 to $4 million. The government’s disclosure rules require officials to only report their assets and income in broad ranges. The DelBenes’ largest investments are in mutual funds and Microsoft stock, the forms show. ‘Track Record’ DelBene has “a track record of successfully managing complex large-scale technology projects,” Microsoft founder Bill Gates said in a statement. “I know him to be a passionate advocate for using technology to solve difficult problems at scale.” Obama announced DelBene’s appointment privately during a meeting this morning with chief executive officers from technology companies including Apple Inc., Yahoo! Inc. and Netflix Inc., Carney said. Sebelius chose DelBene for the position in consultation with Zients and Denis McDonough, the White House chief of staff, he said. “He is uniquely suited to this task; has vast experience with running a complex piece of technology; and the president and the secretary are very grateful that he’s agreed to take on this position,” Carney said. Consumers must purchase insurance by Dec. 23 to quality for coverage beginning Jan. 1. The enrollment period continues until March 31. The administration had estimated that 7 million people would gain health coverage for 2014 through the new state and federal enrollment systems. To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Wayne in Washington at [email protected] To contact the editor responsible for this story: Reg Gale at [email protected] ||||| By Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services Posted December 17, 2013 Today, I am pleased to announce Kurt DelBene as my Senior Advisor and successor to Jeff Zients. Jeff did an outstanding job working with our team to provide management advice and counsel on the HealthCare.gov project. Today, the site is night and day from what it was when it launched on October 1. I am very grateful for his service and leadership. His role leading the management of the site proved critical and today we are announcing his successor: Kurt DelBene. Kurt, who most recently served as president of the Microsoft Office Division, will lead and manage HealthCare.gov starting this Wednesday. Kurt has proven expertise in heading large, complex technology teams and in product development. He will be a tremendous asset in our work. Kurt will work closely with me, the White House, and the teams and senior leadership in place at HHS and CMS to see this project through its next important phase as the CMS team continues to build on their initial progress. He has agreed to serve in this role for at least the first half of next year. Because of the site’s progress, his responsibilities, while similar to Jeff’s, will reflect an evolution of focus as we move on to the next phase. First, Kurt will provide management expertise, operations oversight, and critical advice on additional enrollment channels, field operations, marketing and communications. The President and I believe strongly in having one person, with strong experience and expertise in management and execution, who is thinking 24/7 about HealthCare.gov. Kurt’s leadership and management of HealthCare.gov will be in consultation with CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner and in partnership with the project’s general contractor, QSSI. Second, Kurt will execute the plan in place, so that we can ensure the site’s performance is strong through the close of open enrollment on March 31, 2014. This will include a focus on increasing system stability, redundancy and capacity, and building on improvements to the user interface, while continuing to prioritize security and privacy issues in line with industry best practices. The creation of this role reflects ideas we received from key stakeholders and Senators Shaheen, Kaine, Blumenthal, Warner, Udall, Coons and Landrieu and others. I want to thank them for their constructive ideas and leadership. I am committed to providing and directing the additional resources needed for this project. We are all very excited to have Kurt DelBene on board as we work to make our mission a reality: accessible, quality, affordable health coverage for every American who needs it.

President Obama met with a who's who of tech industry leaders today to discuss the ObamaCare website. Or at least, that was the plan. Politico reports that the tech leaders—including Marissa Mayer, Tim Cook, Sheryl Sandberg, and Eric Schmidt—were way more interested in airing their concerns about the NSA's data mining. No real details have emerged, but the Washington Post says the leaders made clear they think the NSA practices are out of bounds, hurting their business reputations, and posing a threat to the economy. One lighter moment highlighted in coverage: Obama asked Netflix chief Reed Hastings if he had an advance copy of House of Cards. "I wish things were that ruthlessly efficient," he said. "This guy's getting a lot of stuff done." Meanwhile, it's not exactly Clippy to the rescue, but a retiring Microsoft Office exec gets the fun job of overseeing the ObamaCare website starting tomorrow, reports Bloomberg. Kurt DelBene, 53, replaces Jeff Zients, who was brought in temporarily to right the ship after the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov. "Kurt has proven expertise in heading large, complex technology teams and in product development," writes health chief Kathleen Sebelius in a blog post. DelBene is married to freshman Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington state Democrat.

Photo The Munich Oktoberfest might seem an unlikely locale for a medical research project, but German scientists studied festivalgoers and found that moderate social drinking may lead to arrhythmias — irregular heart rhythms — in otherwise healthy people. Using a hand-held breathalyzer, the researchers tested 3,028 men and women who had been drinking but were not legally impaired. They gave them EKGs to test heart function. More than a quarter of the group had a condition called sinus tachycardia, marked by a resting heart rate of more than 100 beats per minute. About 1 to 2 percent of the general population have repeated episodes of tachycardia, which in some cases can pose risks. They also found slightly increased, but not statistically significant, levels of other kinds of irregular heartbeats, including the heart palpitations of atrial fibrillation, a potentially serious condition. The arrhythmias increased with higher breath alcohol levels. The study, in the European Heart Journal, controlled for age, sex, smoking, medication use and a history of heart disease. The lead author, Dr. Moritz F. Sinner, an assistant professor of cardiology at University Hospital Munich, said that in most people, elevated heart rates would be expected to subside as alcohol concentrations went down. He suspects “that people susceptible to developing arrhythmias because of some undiagnosed condition might develop an arrhythmia under the stress of alcohol,” and that some could end up requiring treatment. ||||| Abstract Aims Alcohol is a risk factor for cardiac arrhythmias. Retrospective analyses suggest supraventricular arrhythmias consecutive to acute alcohol consumption, but prospective data are limited. We intended to prospectively associate acute alcohol consumption with cardiac arrhythmias. Methods and results At the 2015 Munich Octoberfest, we enrolled 3028 voluntary participants who received a smartphone-based ECG and breath alcohol concentration (BAC) measurements. ECGs were analysed for cardiac arrhythmias (sinus tachycardia, sinus arrhythmia, premature atrial/ventricular complexes, atrial fibrillation/flutter) and respiratory sinus arrhythmia. By multivariable adjusted logistic regression we associated BACs with cardiac arrhythmias. Similarly, we analysed 4131 participants of the community-based KORA S4 Study (Co-operative Health Research in the Region of Augsburg) and associated cardiac arrhythmias with chronic alcohol consumption. In our acute alcohol cohort (mean age 34.4 ± 13.3 years, 29% women), mean BAC was 0.85 ± 0.54 g/kg. Cardiac arrhythmias occurred in 30.5% (sinus tachycardia 25.9%; other arrhythmia subtypes 5.4%). Breath alcohol concentration was significantly associated with cardiac arrhythmias overall (odds ratio (OR) per 1-unit change 1.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50–2.05; P < 0.001) and sinus tachycardia in particular (OR 1.96, 95%CI 1.66–2.31; P < 0.001). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia measuring autonomic tone was significantly reduced under the influence of alcohol. In KORA S4, chronic alcohol consumption was associated with sinus tachycardia (OR 1.03, 95%CI 1.01–1.06; P = 0.006). Conclusions Acute alcohol consumption is associated with cardiac arrhythmias and sinus tachycardia in particular. This partly reflects autonomic imbalance as assessed by significantly reduced respiratory sinus arrhythmia. Such imbalance might lead to sympathetically triggered atrial fibrillation resembling the holiday heart syndrome. ClinicalTrials.org accession number NCT02550340. Introduction Acute and chronic alcohol intake result in desirable and undesirable health effects.1 Modest recreational alcohol consumption may lead to perceived wellbeing,2 beyond moderate intake confers the risk of adverse outcomes. Common symptoms of acute alcohol consumption are disorientation, disinhibition, nausea, and vomiting.3,4 Excessive acute abuse may lead to death.5 Chronic consumption has been ascribed cardio-protective effects.6 More commonly, chronic alcohol use dose-dependently is associated with detrimental effects including substance addiction and severe nutritional, hepatic, neurological and social consequences.7 From a cardiovascular perspective, acute excessive alcohol consumption has been associated with the so called ‘Holiday Heart Syndrome’.8 This syndrome affects individuals without a specific cardiac history resulting in both ventricular and supraventricular arrhythmias, predominantly atrial fibrillation.8,9 Small case series confirmed a relation between alcohol use and atrial fibrillation.10,11 Regarding chronic alcohol consumption, population-based studies reported a dose-response effect on the development of atrial fibrillation.12 Many open questions remain. All reports on effects of acute alcohol intake were derived from small retrospective analyses with relations to arrhythmias as secondary findings. In our study, we thus intended to conduct a large, sufficiently powered, observational, cross-sectional analysis of cardiac arrhythmia prevalence in participants with quantitatively measured acute alcohol intake. Investigating visitors of the 2015 Munich Octoberfest, we hypothesized that increased breath alcohol concentration (BAC) is associated with a higher burden of cardiac arrhythmias. To parallel acute with chronic alcohol use, we studied participants of the community-based KORA Study. Methods Study cohorts For the analysis of BAC and arrhythmia prevalence, we designed an observational, cross-sectional cohort study and recruited voluntary visitors at the annual Octoberfest in Munich, Germany between September and October 2015 (acute alcohol cohort). Participants had to be ≥18 years of age and provide written informed consent to study inclusion. We screened and consented 3042 individuals. After exclusion of individuals with a BAC ≥3.00 g/kg (n = 4) and individuals with uninterpretable electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings (n = 8), the final study cohort comprised 3028 participants. Individuals with a BAC ≥ 3.00 g/kg are considered disabled due to intoxication according to German law, and must not be consented. The ethics committee at the Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich, Germany approved the study, which was registered at clinicaltrials.org (NCT02550340). To assess chronic alcohol consumption on arrhythmia prevalence, we investigated participants of the Survey S4 of the community-based Co-operative Health Research in the region of Augsburg Study (KORA S4, chronic alcohol cohort).13 Study participants were identified through the registration office. Ten strata of equal size according to sex and age comprised 4261 individuals; after exclusion of those without (n = 95) or with uninterpretable (n = 17) ECGs, or without information on alcohol consumption (n = 18), the final cohort consisted of 4131 individuals. The ethics committee of the Bavarian Medical Association approved the study. Electrocardiogram recordings In the acute alcohol cohort, 30 s ECG recordings were obtained using the smart phone based AliveCor device (AliveCor, San Francisco, CA, USA). A two-electrode hardware extension wirelessly communicating with a software application was held with both hands by the participant, resembling a lead I ECG. In KORA S4, digital 10 s 12-lead ECGs were obtained using the Hannover ECG System version 3.22-12 (HES, Corscience, Erlangen, Germany). ECGs were recorded after 10 min rest in supine position. Electrocardiogram analysis was performed in parallel by two senior cardiologists blinded to BAC, chronic alcohol consumption levels, or clinical covariates. Discrepant findings were resolved by consent. Assessment of arrhythmias employed a standardized coding scheme. Arrhythmias were classified as sinus tachycardia (heart rate >100 b.p.m.), sinus arrhythmia, premature atrial complex, premature ventricular complex, and atrial fibrillation or flutter. We further assessed all ECGs for respiratory sinus arrhythmia as a measure of autonomic tone. For this, we modified the previously described respiratory sinus arrhythmia bedside test.14 Per 30 s ECG recording, we measured RR intervals with a scaled caliper, neglecting RR intervals before and after premature beats, and determined the shortest, longest, and mean RR interval of each participant. We considered respiratory sinus arrhythmia present, when the absolute difference of the shortest and longest RR interval was ≥20% of the mean RR interval duration. Alcohol assessment In the acute alcohol cohort, BAC was determined using a Dräger Alcotest 7510 handheld device (Drägerwerk AG, Lübeck, Germany). The device accounts for remaining oral alcohol. To further reduce influence of the latter, BAC was obtained at the end of participant recruitment, when individuals had not ingested alcohol for several minutes. Alcohol was measured in gram per kilogram (g/kg). In KORA S4, chronic alcohol consumption was assessed in gram alcohol per day (g/d), surveyed using the validated 7-day-recall method.15 Clinical covariates In our acute alcohol cohort, assessment of clinical covariates was restricted by the study setting and the aim to maintain participant privacy. We were thus limited to survey self-reported age, sex, country of origin, history of heart disease, use of cardiovascular and antiarrhythmic drugs, and active smoking status. In KORA S4, participants underwent a standardized interview and examination.13 We used information on age, sex, hypertension, smoking status, history of angina, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and stroke, as well as the use of cardiovascular and antiarrhythmic medication. Statistical considerations We express categorical variables as frequency (percentage). Continuous data are presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (25th;75th percentile) as appropriate. We applied logistic regression models to assess the relation of alcohol as predictor on the primary and secondary outcomes of arrhythmia prevalence, adjusted for age and sex or in addition for the remaining available covariates. Odds ratios are provided per unit (i.e. 1 g/kg) increase of BAC. Arrhythmia prevalence across quartiles of BAC was compared by χ2 tests for trend. Primary outcome was the occurrence of any arrhythmia including sinus arrhythmia, sinus tachycardia, premature atrial complex, premature ventricular complex, and atrial fibrillation or flutter. Secondary outcomes were arrhythmia subtype separately or combinations thereof. Another secondary outcome in our acute alcohol cohort was the presence of respiratory sinus arrhythmia. For sensitivity analyses to adjudicate the influence of alcohol consumption on the baseline prevalence of sinus tachycardia, we selected a subgroup of participants from our acute alcohol cohort with no exposure to acute alcohol consumption (BAC 0 g/kg). Similarly, in KORA S4 we selected participants without chronic alcohol use. In these sensitivity analyses, we determined the prevalence of cardiac arrhythmias as detailed above. Finally, we assessed interaction with sex by adding multiplicative interaction terms (sex*BAC) to our models. For sample size calculations in the acute alcohol cohort, we assumed a 1% prevalence of arrhythmias in the general population assessed by a 10 s ECG. In our 30 s recordings, we assumed a 1.5% prevalence in those under no or low influence of alcohol (<0.5 g/kg). For the group under intermediate (≥0.5–<1.5 g/kg) and high (≥1.5 g/kg) influence, we assumed an odds of 2 and 4 for the prevalence of arrhythmias, respectively. For 85% power with a two-sided α-level set at 5%, we required 2754 participants. To account for a 10% drop-out rate, we aimed at 3029 enrolled individuals. Results During all 16 days of the 2015 Munich Octoberfest we included 3028 participants for analysis. Their mean age was 34.7 ± 13.3 years, 905 (29.9%) were women (Table 1). Reflecting the international attendance, individuals originated from 60 different countries, whereas the majority of 69% was from Germany. Table 1 Acute alcohol cohort Chronic alcohol cohort Men Women Men Women n 3028 2123 905 4131 2021 2110 Sex (women), n(%) 905 (29.9%) - - 2110 (51.1%) - - Age, years 34.7 ± 13.3 35.5 ± 13.4 33.1 ± 12.8 49.1 ± 13.9 49.5 ± 14.0 48.7 ± 13.8 History of Heart disease, n(%) 175 (5.8%) 140 (6.6%) 35 (3.9%) - - - Angina, n(%) - - - 249 (6.0%) 116 (5.7%) 133 (6.3%) Myocardial infarction, n(%) - - - 82 (2.0%) 71 (3.5%) 11 (0.5%) Diabetes mellitus, n(%) - - - 159 (3.8%) 82 (4.1%) 77 (3.6%) Stroke, n(%) - - - 49 (1.2%) 33 (1.6%) 16 (0.8%) Arrhythmias, n(%) 80 (2.6%) 57 (2.7%) 23 (2.5%) - - - Medication use, n(%) 185 (6.1%) 149 (7.0%) 36 (4.0%) 859 (20.8%) 409 (20.2%) 450 (21.3%) Current smoking, n(%) 858 (28.3%) 605 (28.5%) 253 (28.0%) 1066 (25.6%) 616 (30.5%) 450 (21.3%) Acute alcohol cohort Chronic alcohol cohort Men Women Men Women n 3028 2123 905 4131 2021 2110 Sex (women), n(%) 905 (29.9%) - - 2110 (51.1%) - - Age, years 34.7 ± 13.3 35.5 ± 13.4 33.1 ± 12.8 49.1 ± 13.9 49.5 ± 14.0 48.7 ± 13.8 History of Heart disease, n(%) 175 (5.8%) 140 (6.6%) 35 (3.9%) - - - Angina, n(%) - - - 249 (6.0%) 116 (5.7%) 133 (6.3%) Myocardial infarction, n(%) - - - 82 (2.0%) 71 (3.5%) 11 (0.5%) Diabetes mellitus, n(%) - - - 159 (3.8%) 82 (4.1%) 77 (3.6%) Stroke, n(%) - - - 49 (1.2%) 33 (1.6%) 16 (0.8%) Arrhythmias, n(%) 80 (2.6%) 57 (2.7%) 23 (2.5%) - - - Medication use, n(%) 185 (6.1%) 149 (7.0%) 36 (4.0%) 859 (20.8%) 409 (20.2%) 450 (21.3%) Current smoking, n(%) 858 (28.3%) 605 (28.5%) 253 (28.0%) 1066 (25.6%) 616 (30.5%) 450 (21.3%) The KORA S4 cohort consisted of 4131 individuals with a mean age of 49.1 ± 13.9 years and 2110 (51.1%) females (Table 1). Owing to the study composition, >99.5% were of German descent. In the acute alcohol cohort, the mean BAC was 0.85 ± 0.54 g/kg (range 0–2.94 g/kg). Generally, men had a higher BAC compared to women. Across quartiles of age, the highest BAC was found in the 2nd quartile (25–30 years of age, Figure 1A). We noted limited day-by-day variation, tending to higher BAC measurements towards the weekends (Figure 1C). The circadian distribution confirmed a constant rise in BAC toward the closing hour of each day. A slight decline in the afternoon likely reflects a partial exchange of visitors due to seat reservation time slots (Figure 1D). Figure 1 View largeDownload slide Alcohol consumption. A. Distribution of breath alcohol concentration (BAC) across the acute alcohol cohort in g/kg. Results presented for the entire cohort, and stratified by sex and quartiles of age. B. Distribution of chronic alcohol consumption in KORA S4 in g/d. Results presented for the entire cohort, and stratified by sex and quartiles of age. Outliers truncated at 80 g/d. C. Day-by-day variability of mean BAC for each of the 16 days of the Octoberfest. D. Circadian variability of mean BAC across recruitment days at the Octoberfest. Figure 1 View largeDownload slide Alcohol consumption. A. Distribution of breath alcohol concentration (BAC) across the acute alcohol cohort in g/kg. Results presented for the entire cohort, and stratified by sex and quartiles of age. B. Distribution of chronic alcohol consumption in KORA S4 in g/d. Results presented for the entire cohort, and stratified by sex and quartiles of age. Outliers truncated at 80 g/d. C. Day-by-day variability of mean BAC for each of the 16 days of the Octoberfest. D. Circadian variability of mean BAC across recruitment days at the Octoberfest. The mean chronic consumption of alcohol in KORA S4 was 15.8 ± 21.4 g/d. On average, men consumed nearly three time as much alcohol as women. The highest chronic alcohol consumption was observed in the 3rd age quartile (37–48 years of age, Figure 1B). The quality of ECG recordings in our acute alcohol cohort was high, despite disadvantageous recording conditions. Only eight ECGs were uninterpretable. Examples of encountered arrhythmias are presented in Figure 2A–E. In the acute alcohol cohort, the primary outcome of any arrhythmia occurred in 30.5%. Thereby, sinus tachycardia was most common and affected 25.9% of participants. The combined prevalence of other arrhythmias was 5.4%, including sinus arrhythmia, premature atrial and ventricular complexes, and atrial fibrillation or flutter. The secondary outcome of respiratory sinus arrhythmia as a qualitative measure of autonomic tone was noted in 22.2% of participants (Table 2). Figure 2 View largeDownload slide Examples and Prevalence of Cardiac Arrhythmias. A–E. Representative ECG recordings obtained in our acute alcohol cohort. ECG recordings show sinus rhythm (A), sinus tachycardia (B), premature atrial complex (C), premature ventricular complex (D), atrial fibrillation (E). F–G. Clustered bars represent the prevalence of the primary outcome of any cardiac arrhythmia (F) and sinus tachycardia (G) in our acute alcohol cohort by quartiles of BAC. Within each cluster, bars represent the overall cohort (green), and sex-stratified results for men (blue) and women (red). Clusters compared by χ2 test for trend. Figure 2 View largeDownload slide Examples and Prevalence of Cardiac Arrhythmias. A–E. Representative ECG recordings obtained in our acute alcohol cohort. ECG recordings show sinus rhythm (A), sinus tachycardia (B), premature atrial complex (C), premature ventricular complex (D), atrial fibrillation (E). F–G. Clustered bars represent the prevalence of the primary outcome of any cardiac arrhythmia (F) and sinus tachycardia (G) in our acute alcohol cohort by quartiles of BAC. Within each cluster, bars represent the overall cohort (green), and sex-stratified results for men (blue) and women (red). Clusters compared by χ2 test for trend. Table 2 Acute alcohol cohort Chronic alcohol cohort Men Women Men Women 1 Sinus arrhythmia 51 (1.7%) 40 (1.9%) 11 (1.2%) 9 (0.2%) 4 (0.2%) 5 (0.2%) 2 Sinus tachycardia 785 (25.9%) 514 (24.2%) 271 (29.9%) 17 (0.4%) 9 (0.4%) 8 (0.4%) 3 Premature atrial complexes 39 (1.3%) 30 (1.4%) 9 (1.0%) 26 (0.6%) 11 (0.7%) 11 (0.5%) 4 Premature ventricular complexes 52 (1.7%) 39 (1.8%) 13 (1.4%) 46 (1.1%) 19 (0.9%) 27 (1.3%) 5 Atrial fibrillation/flutter 25 (0.8%) 12 (0.6%) 13 (1.4%) 22 (0.5%) 18 (0.9%) 4 (0.2%) Combination of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 925 (30.5%) 614 (28.9%) 311 (34.4%) 112 (2.7%) 58 (2.9%) 54 (2.6%) Combination of 1, 3, 4, 5 164 (5.4%) 118 (5.6%) 46 (5.1%) 95 (2.3%) 50 (2.2%) 45 (2.1%) Combination of 3, 4, 5 113 (3.7%) 78 (3.7%) 35 (3.9%) 87 (2.1%) 47 (2.0%) 40 (1.9%) Respiratory sinus arrhythmia 673 (22.2%) 509 (24.0%) 163 (18.0%) - - - Acute alcohol cohort Chronic alcohol cohort Men Women Men Women 1 Sinus arrhythmia 51 (1.7%) 40 (1.9%) 11 (1.2%) 9 (0.2%) 4 (0.2%) 5 (0.2%) 2 Sinus tachycardia 785 (25.9%) 514 (24.2%) 271 (29.9%) 17 (0.4%) 9 (0.4%) 8 (0.4%) 3 Premature atrial complexes 39 (1.3%) 30 (1.4%) 9 (1.0%) 26 (0.6%) 11 (0.7%) 11 (0.5%) 4 Premature ventricular complexes 52 (1.7%) 39 (1.8%) 13 (1.4%) 46 (1.1%) 19 (0.9%) 27 (1.3%) 5 Atrial fibrillation/flutter 25 (0.8%) 12 (0.6%) 13 (1.4%) 22 (0.5%) 18 (0.9%) 4 (0.2%) Combination of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 925 (30.5%) 614 (28.9%) 311 (34.4%) 112 (2.7%) 58 (2.9%) 54 (2.6%) Combination of 1, 3, 4, 5 164 (5.4%) 118 (5.6%) 46 (5.1%) 95 (2.3%) 50 (2.2%) 45 (2.1%) Combination of 3, 4, 5 113 (3.7%) 78 (3.7%) 35 (3.9%) 87 (2.1%) 47 (2.0%) 40 (1.9%) Respiratory sinus arrhythmia 673 (22.2%) 509 (24.0%) 163 (18.0%) - - - In comparison, arrhythmias occurred less frequently in KORA S4. Only 2.7% of the participants met the primary outcome, at which 0.4% had sinus tachycardia and 2.3% presented with sinus arrhythmia, premature atrial and ventricular complexes, and atrial fibrillation or flutter (Table 2). In our sensitivity analysis of study participants with 0 g/kg BAC in the acute alcohol cohort, the primary outcome of any arrhythmia occurred in 23.9%, and sinus tachycardia occurred in 18.5%. In those without alcohol use in the chronic alcohol cohort, prevalence of any arrhythmia was 2.5% and of sinus tachycardia was 0.4%. For our primary outcome (sinus tachycardia; sinus arrhythmia; premature atrial and ventricular complexes; atrial fibrillation or flutter), we identified a robust association with higher BAC in our acute alcohol cohort. Analysis by arrhythmia subtype revealed that this association was driven by sinus tachycardia, both after age and sex, and after multivariable adjustment. (Table 3) Across quartiles of BAC in the overall and sex-stratified cohort, we found increasing prevalences of any arrhythmia and sinus tachycardia, respectively (Figure 2F and G). In sex-stratified analyses, the effect of BAC on sinus tachycardia was similar in males and females, both after adjustment for age (males: OR 2.12 (95% CI 1.75–2.58), P < 0.001; females: OR 2.02 (95% CI 1.51–2.69), P < 0.001) and after multivariable adjustment (males: OR 2.00 (95% CI 1.64–2.44), P < 0.001; females: OR 1.89 (95% CI 1.40–2.55), P < 0.001). We also noted a significant inverse association of respiratory sinus arrhythmia with BAC (Table 3). Interaction analyses did not suggest interaction between sex and BAC. Table 3 Acute alcohol cohort Chronic alcohol cohort Adjusted for Multivariable Adjusted for Multivariable Age and Sex Adjustment Age and Sex Adjustment OR (95%CI) P OR (95%CI) P OR (95%CI) P OR (95%CI) P 1 Sinus arrhythmia 0.74 (0.43–1.30) 0.3 0.77 (0.44–1.35) 0.36 0.97 (0.92–1.03) 0.31 0.97 (0.91–1.02) 0.25 2 Sinus tachycardia 2.08 (1.77–2.45) <0.001 1.96 (1.66–2.31) <0.001 1.02 (1.01–1.04) 0.003 1.03 (1.01–1.05) 0.006 3 Premature atrial complexes 0.88 (0.46–1.70) 0.71 0.93 (0.48–1.81) 0.84 0.99 (0.96–1.01) 0.31 0.99 (0.96–1.01) 0.35 4 Premature ventricular complexes 1.11 (0.64–1.92) 0.71 1.07 (0.62–1.86) 0.81 0.99 (0.97–1.01) 0.43 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.45 5 Atrial fibrillation/flutter 1.45 (0.67–3.13) 0.35 1.39 (0.64–3.00) 0.83 1.00 (0.98–1.02) 0.80 1.00 (0.98–1.02) 0.84 Combination of 3, 4, 5 1.03 (0.70–1.51) 0.87 1.03 (0.70–1.51) 0.89 0.99 (0.98–1.00) 0.21 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.27 Combination of 1, 3, 4, 5 0.93 (0.68–1.27) 0.64 0.93 (0.68–1.28) 0.67 0.99 (0.98–1.00) 0.15 0.99 (0.98–1.00) 0.18 Combination of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1.87 (1.60–2.18) <0.001 1.75 (1.50–2.05) <0.001 1.00 (0.99–1.01) 0.94 1.00 (0.99–1.01) 0.90 Respiratory sinus arrhythmia 0.52 (0.44–0.63) <0.001 0.54 (0.45–0.65) <0.001 – – – – Acute alcohol cohort Chronic alcohol cohort Adjusted for Multivariable Adjusted for Multivariable Age and Sex Adjustment Age and Sex Adjustment OR (95%CI) P OR (95%CI) P OR (95%CI) P OR (95%CI) P 1 Sinus arrhythmia 0.74 (0.43–1.30) 0.3 0.77 (0.44–1.35) 0.36 0.97 (0.92–1.03) 0.31 0.97 (0.91–1.02) 0.25 2 Sinus tachycardia 2.08 (1.77–2.45) <0.001 1.96 (1.66–2.31) <0.001 1.02 (1.01–1.04) 0.003 1.03 (1.01–1.05) 0.006 3 Premature atrial complexes 0.88 (0.46–1.70) 0.71 0.93 (0.48–1.81) 0.84 0.99 (0.96–1.01) 0.31 0.99 (0.96–1.01) 0.35 4 Premature ventricular complexes 1.11 (0.64–1.92) 0.71 1.07 (0.62–1.86) 0.81 0.99 (0.97–1.01) 0.43 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.45 5 Atrial fibrillation/flutter 1.45 (0.67–3.13) 0.35 1.39 (0.64–3.00) 0.83 1.00 (0.98–1.02) 0.80 1.00 (0.98–1.02) 0.84 Combination of 3, 4, 5 1.03 (0.70–1.51) 0.87 1.03 (0.70–1.51) 0.89 0.99 (0.98–1.00) 0.21 0.99 (0.98–1.01) 0.27 Combination of 1, 3, 4, 5 0.93 (0.68–1.27) 0.64 0.93 (0.68–1.28) 0.67 0.99 (0.98–1.00) 0.15 0.99 (0.98–1.00) 0.18 Combination of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 1.87 (1.60–2.18) <0.001 1.75 (1.50–2.05) <0.001 1.00 (0.99–1.01) 0.94 1.00 (0.99–1.01) 0.90 Respiratory sinus arrhythmia 0.52 (0.44–0.63) <0.001 0.54 (0.45–0.65) <0.001 – – – – In KORA S4, we confirmed an association between sinus tachycardia and chronic alcohol consumption. Yet, the associated effect size was remarkably smaller than with acute alcohol consumption. No associations with chronic alcohol consumption were found for other arrhythmias or a combination of sinus tachycardia with other arrhythmia subtypes (Table 3). Discussion In our observational, cross-sectional acute alcohol cohort, we have recruited over 3000 participants with quantitatively measured acute alcohol consumption. Each participant received a 30 s ECG for arrhythmia analysis. Our main finding was a significant association of sinus tachycardia with acute alcohol intake, occurring in 25.9% of individuals. We also confirmed this association with chronic alcohol consumption in the community-based cohort KORA study. In the acute alcohol cohort, respiratory sinus arrhythmia as a marker of balanced autonomic tone was more common in those exposed to less alcohol. The Octoberfest is a traditional public festival in the city of Munich, Germany that is celebrated annually since 1810. It has gained strong international recognition and is renowned for serving Munich-brewed beer. Numerous visitors attend the festival primarily for the purpose of beer consumption. In 2015, 5.9 million visitors frequented the Octoberfest and consumed 7.5 million liters of beer. We thus considered the setting most suitable for conducting our acute alcohol study. We anticipated that by recruiting participants during all 16 days of the festival, we would be able to enrol a sufficient number of individuals presenting with a continuously distributed range of BAC. With an average BAC of 0.85 g/kg (range: 0–2.94 g/kg) we clearly achieved this goal. The modest day-by-day and circadian variabilities of BAC support the robustness of our results. The lively atmosphere in a beer tent deviated from AliveCor manufacturer recommendations for ECG recording. Despite adverse recording conditions, with >99.5% interpretable readings the obtained ECG quality was very high. We conservatively based sample size considerations on an estimated 1.5% prevalence of any arrhythmia under no acute influence of alcohol and at rest. Even without considering sinus tachycardia, we detected arrhythmias in 2.3% of our chronic and in 5.4% of our acute alcohol cohorts. We thus submit that we present sufficiently powered results. In our acute alcohol cohort, we found a strong and robust association of increased BAC with sinus tachycardia in particular. We were not able to associate increased BAC with other arrhythmia subtypes and specifically atrial fibrillation. This is despite prior reports that repeatedly suggested such a relation coining the term ‘holiday heart syndrome’.8 It is notable that so far studies have considered patients presenting with atrial fibrillation and have then retrospectively identified recent acute alcohol consumption as a presumed cause.8–10 Ours is the first large and prospective investigation to systematically analyse the immediate occurrence of arrhythmias under the influence of acute alcohol intake. We thus conclude that acute alcohol consumption leads to increased arrhythmia prevalence overall, with sinus tachycardia as the immediate main effect. For chronic alcohol consumption, prior results are more equivocal. Based on large community-based studies, modest use does not appear to be a major risk factor for atrial fibrillation.16 Only long-term use in the Framingham Heart Study and beyond moderate use (>35 standard drinks per week) in the Copenhagen City Heart Study resulted in an increased risk for atrial fibrillation.12,17 Along these findings, in our own community-based analysis of low to moderate chronic alcohol consumption with less than 20 g/d on average, we did not find an association with an increased arrhythmia prevalence. A main result of our study is the profound association of acute alcohol consumption with sinus tachycardia. As demonstrated in our sensitivity analysis, it is intuitive to assume that participants of a festival present with significantly higher rates of sinus tachycardia than under resting conditions. However, sinus tachycardia occurred almost 30% more often in Octoberfest participants under the influence of alcohol compared with those without alcohol consumption. Furthermore, the association of sinus tachycardia with higher BAC remained even after accounting for confounders. Although less pronounced, also in KORA S4 increased chronic alcohol consumption was associated with sinus tachycardia. Whereas ours is the largest prospective analysis to describe the association of acute alcohol consumption and sinus tachycardia under real life conditions, the relation has previously been noted. Prior studies have reported an increase in heart rate following alcohol intake in experimental settings.18–21 Consistently, these studies have identified alcohol induced alterations of the autonomic nervous system to elevate heart rate. Thereby, both an increase in sympathetic activity18,21 and a decrease in vagal tone19,20 have been described. Respiratory sinus arrhythmia is a simple measure of cardiac vagal tone and autonomic balance.22 In our acute alcohol cohort, participants with increased BAC presented with a significantly reduced prevalence of respiratory sinus arrhythmia. This finding concurs with the interpretation that the observed alcohol induced increase in heart rate is the consequence of changes in autonomic balance. Autonomic imbalance is strongly predisposing to the development of atrial fibrillation.23,24 Alcohol induced autonomic imbalance could thus hypothetically be a link to the later development of atrial fibrillation. Possibly, the short duration of our ECG recordings immediately during acute alcohol exposition resulted in an underestimation of alcohol induced cardiac arrhythmias and atrial fibrillation in particular. These considerations ask for additional research including longer ECG recordings during follow-up of hours and days after acute alcohol consumption. A number of considerations are warranted when interpreting our study. Given the public environment of our study, we were restricted in assessing personal questions and conducting physical examinations. Hence, several possible confounding factors remained unaddressed, including but not limited to the amount of alcohol consumption prior to BAC measurement, the participants’ common alcohol consumption behaviour, their use of recreational drugs, or their usual physical activity. A single 30 s ECG recording prevented the investigation of temporal relations between alcohol consumption and arrhythmia occurrence. Importantly, we cannot comment on the relevance of baseline heart rate prior to alcohol intake. We were thus only able to assess the prevalence but not the incidence of arrhythmias during follow-up. Future studies with longer ECG recordings will need to fill this gap. Respiratory sinus arrhythmia only partially reflects the influence of autonomic tone on heart rate variability. Additional research is warranted to investigate more elaborate measures of autonomic tone in relation to alcohol consumption. Due to our exclusion criteria, we were not able to study severely intoxicated individuals (BAC ≥3.00 g/kg). In KORA S4, chronic alcohol consumption was rather low compared with other community-based cohorts. We might thus have underestimated arrhythmia prevalence secondary to long-term alcohol use. Information on chronic alcohol consumption in our acute alcohol cohort was unavailable. In conclusion, we have conducted a large prospective analysis of acute alcohol consumption on ECG-assessed cardiac arrhythmias. We thereby report good technical feasibility of ECG screening even under lively conditions at the Munich Octoberfest. Acute and—to a lesser extent—chronic alcohol consumption were associated with sinus tachycardia. Analysis of respiratory sinus arrhythmia as a measure of autonomic tone suggested that acute alcohol intake confers autonomic imbalance. Additional research is warranted to investigate if autonomic imbalance constitutes the link between sinus tachycardia and the occurrence of arrhythmias like atrial fibrillation, as implicated by reports of the so-called ‘Holiday Heart Syndrome’ (Figure3). Figure 3 View largeDownload slide MunichBREW study conclusions. The figure summarizes the study procedures and results in the panel shaded in green. These findings influence the generated hypothesis on ‘Holiday Heart Syndrome’ pathophysiology illustrated in the panel shaded in red. Importantly, additional research is warranted to support this hypothesis. Figure 3 View largeDownload slide MunichBREW study conclusions. The figure summarizes the study procedures and results in the panel shaded in green. These findings influence the generated hypothesis on ‘Holiday Heart Syndrome’ pathophysiology illustrated in the panel shaded in red. Importantly, additional research is warranted to support this hypothesis. Acknowledgements We are grateful to Staatliches Hofbräuhaus in München (director Dr Michael Möller) for supporting the conduction of our research. This work is part of the doctoral theses of Rebecca Herbel and Cathrine Drobesch. Funding This study was funded by the Stiftung Biomedizinische Alkoholforschung, institutional funds of the Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Munich, and by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme [grant number 633196]: CATCH ME. The KORA study was initiated and financed by the Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Centre for Environmental Health, funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and by the State of Bavaria. Conflict of interest: none declared. References 1 Piepoli MF Hoes AW Agewall S Albus C Brotons C Catapano AL Cooney MT Corra U Cosyns B Deaton C Graham I Hall MS Hobbs FD Lochen ML Lollgen H Marques-Vidal P Perk J Prescott E Redon J Richter DJ Sattar N Smulders Y Tiberi M van der Worp HB van Dis I Verschuren WM Authors/Task Force M . 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: The Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts) Developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR) . Eur Heart J 2016 ; 37 : 2315 – 2381 . 2 Gilman JM Ramchandani VA Davis MB Bjork JM Hommer DW. Why we like to drink: a functional magnetic resonance imaging study of the rewarding and anxiolytic effects of alcohol . J Neurosci 2008 ; 28 : 4583 – 4591 . 3 Yost DA. Acute care for alcohol intoxication. Be prepared to consider clinical dilemmas . Postgrad Med 2002 ; 112 : 14 – 16, 21–12, 25–16. 21–12, 25–16. 4 Vonghia L Leggio L Ferrulli A Bertini M Gasbarrini G Addolorato G Alcoholism Treatment Study G. Acute alcohol intoxication . Eur J Intern Med 2008 ; 19 : 561 – 567 . 5 Kanny D Brewer RD Mesnick JB Paulozzi LJ Naimi TS Lu H. Vital signs: alcohol poisoning deaths - United States, 2010-2012 . MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2015 ; 63 : 1238 – 1242 . 6 Ronksley PE Brien SE Turner BJ Mukamal KJ Ghali WA. Association of alcohol consumption with selected cardiovascular disease outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis . BMJ 2011 ; 342 : d671. 7 O'Connor PG Schottenfeld RS. Patients with alcohol problems . N Engl J Med 1998 ; 338 : 592 – 602 . 8 Ettinger PO Wu CF De La Cruz C Jr. Jr. Weisse AB Ahmed SS Regan TJ. Arrhythmias and the “Holiday Heart”: alcohol-associated cardiac rhythm disorders . Am Heart J 1978 ; 95 : 555 – 562 . 9 Koskinen P Kupari M Leinonen H Luomanmaki K. Alcohol and new onset atrial fibrillation: a case-control study of a current series . Br Heart J 1987 ; 57 : 468 – 473 . 10 Krishnamoorthy S Lip GY Lane DA. Alcohol and illicit drug use as precipitants of atrial fibrillation in young adults: a case series and literature review . Am J Med 2009 ; 122 : 851 – 856 . e853. . e853. 11 Mandyam MC Vedantham V Scheinman MM Tseng ZH Badhwar N Lee BK Lee RJ Gerstenfeld EP Olgin JE Marcus GM. Alcohol and vagal tone as triggers for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation . Am J Cardiol 2012 ; 110 : 364 – 368 . 12 Djousse L Levy D Benjamin EJ Blease SJ Russ A Larson MG Massaro JM D'agostino RB Wolf PA Ellison RC. Long-term alcohol consumption and the risk of atrial fibrillation in the Framingham Study . Am J Cardiol 2004 ; 93 : 710 – 713 . 13 Holle R Happich M Lowel H Wichmann HE Group MKS. KORA–a research platform for population based health research . Gesundheitswesen 2005 ; 67 (Suppl. 1): S19 – S25 . (Suppl. 1): 14 Katz A Liberty IF Porath A Ovsyshcher I Prystowsky EN. A simple bedside test of 1-minute heart rate variability during deep breathing as a prognostic index after myocardial infarction . Am Heart J 1999 ; 138 : 32 – 38 . 15 Schneider B Baumert J Schneider A Marten-Mittag B Meisinger C Erazo N Hammer GP Ladwig KH. The effect of risky alcohol use and smoking on suicide risk: findings from the German MONICA/KORA-Augsburg Cohort Study . Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2011 ; 46 : 1127 – 1132 . 16 Mukamal KJ Psaty BM Rautaharju PM Furberg CD Kuller LH Mittleman MA Gottdiener JS Siscovick DS. Alcohol consumption and risk and prognosis of atrial fibrillation among older adults: the Cardiovascular Health Study . Am Heart J 2007 ; 153 : 260 – 266 . 17 Mukamal KJ Tolstrup JS Friberg J Jensen G Gronbaek M. Alcohol consumption and risk of atrial fibrillation in men and women: the Copenhagen City Heart Study . Circulation 2005 ; 112 : 1736 – 1742 . 18 Iwase S Matsukawa T Ishihara S Tanaka A Tanabe K Danbara A Matsuo M Sugiyama Y Mano T. Effect of oral ethanol intake on muscle sympathetic nerve activity and cardiovascular functions in humans . J Auton Nerv Syst 1995 ; 54 : 206 – 214 . 19 Reed SF Porges SW Newlin DB. Effect of alcohol on vagal regulation of cardiovascular function: contributions of the polyvagal theory to the psychophysiology of alcohol . Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 1999 ; 7 : 484 – 492 . 20 Sagawa Y Kondo H Matsubuchi N Takemura T Kanayama H Kaneko Y Kanbayashi T Hishikawa Y Shimizu T. Alcohol has a dose-related effect on parasympathetic nerve activity during sleep . Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2011 ; 35 : 2093 – 2100 . 21 Spaak J Merlocco AC Soleas GJ Tomlinson G Morris BL Picton P Notarius CF Chan CT Floras JS. Dose-related effects of red wine and alcohol on hemodynamics, sympathetic nerve activity, and arterial diameter . Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2008 ; 294 : H605 – H612 . 22 Sinnecker D Dommasch M Steger A Berkefeld A Hoppmann P Muller A Gebhardt J Barthel P Hnatkova K Huster KM Laugwitz KL Malik M Schmidt G. Expiration-triggered sinus arrhythmia predicts outcome in survivors of acute myocardial infarction . J Am Coll Cardiol 2016 ; 67 : 2213 – 2220 . 23 de Vos CB Nieuwlaat R Crijns HJ Camm AJ LeHeuzey JY Kirchhof CJ Capucci A Breithardt G Vardas PE Pisters R Tieleman RG. Autonomic trigger patterns and anti-arrhythmic treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: data from the Euro Heart Survey . Eur Heart J 2008 ; 29 : 632 – 639 . 24 Park HW Shen MJ Lin SF Fishbein MC Chen LS Chen PS. Neural mechanisms of atrial fibrillation . Curr Opin Cardiol 2012 ; 27 : 24 – 28 . Author notes © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. ||||| Image copyright Getty Images Drinking lots of alcohol in a short space of time will not only get you drunk but may also upset your heart rhythm, say researchers. They did a field experiment in Germany with 3,000 adults at Munich's famous annual Oktoberfest. The odds of heart arrhythmia increased as beer consumption went up. Most of the arrhythmias were "apparently harmless" sinus tachycardia, where the heart just beats faster than normal, but a few were not. Around 5% of the arrhythmias recorded were potentially more worrying, and included one type called atrial fibrillation, which, if it persists, is linked to an increased risk of stroke and heart failure. These odds are very low, which meant there was no significant link between alcohol and dangerous heart arrhythmias in the study. But there was a significant link between alcohol consumption and more benign arrhythmias. After a few beers The volunteers, who were all deemed sober enough to take part in the tests, had heart traces taken using a mobile phone app while they partied. Although it is not surprising that heart rate might increase in a party atmosphere, sinus tachycardia was far more common among the drinkers who had downed a few Steins of beer at the Oktoberfest than in the 400 or so abstainers. The likelihood of a cardiac arrhythmia increased as the number of grams of alcohol per kilogram of blood (measured with a breathalyser) went up. Even though the "lively atmosphere in the beer tent" was not the ideal setting for doing the heart traces, the researchers were able to get reliable recordings for almost all of the volunteers, the European Heart Journal reports. They found arrhythmias in 30% of these 30-second recordings - more than would be expected in a general population. The researchers think it is possible that innocent arrhythmias could sometimes lead to more serious ones, such as atrial fibrillation, within days of drinking lots of alcohol, although they did not test this out in their study. They now plan more research to check if this "Holiday Heart Syndrome" - arrhythmia triggered by an a sudden alcohol binge - exists and, if it does, whether it remedies itself. Researcher Dr Moritz Sinner from the University Hospital of Munich said: "What we have found is that alcohol does interfere with heart rhythm, which hasn't been shown like this before. "What we still don't know is what happens after people stop drinking or continue to drink. What happens the next day or the day after?" Dr Mike Knapton from the British Heart Foundation said: "Using the Munich Oktoberfest as a real world laboratory is a unique approach and has given us an insight into how heavy drinking over a short space of time can increase people's chances of having an abnormal heart rhythm. However, longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm if this type of drinking has a lasting effect in giving people potentially life-threatening arrhythmias. "Extensive research has shown that alcohol consumption is associated with a range of diseases, including heart disease and cancer. Our advice is to drink in moderation, or no more than 14 units of alcohol per week."

Armed with hand-held breathalyzers and EKGs, German scientists put in a hard month's work at Munich's Oktoberfest as they mingled with thousands of men and women who were "under the stress of alcohol," to use the scientific term. Now they're reporting in the European Heart Journal that, after controlling for age, sex, smoking, medications, and heart disease, even moderate beer consumption is associated with irregular heart rhythms, or arrhythmias. Most appear to be benign, with just upward of one in four of the 3,028 participants having a condition called sinus tachycardia, which means their resting heart rate exceeded 100 beats per minute, reports the New York Times. But one in 20 participants had more worrying arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation, which when persistent is linked to strokes and heart failure, reports the BBC. "Alcohol does interfere with heart rhythm, which hasn't been shown like this before," one researcher says. But, he says, "What we still don't know is what happens after people stop drinking or continue to drink. What happens the next day or the day after?" They plan to investigate that down the road, but for now encourage drinking in moderation. What's that mean? "No more than 14 units of alcohol per week," one expert tells the BBC. (Beer may be saving lives in Russia.)

On January 17, 2014, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 ( H.R. 3547 / P.L. 113-76 ), which provides full-year funding for FY2014, including the foreign affairs budget. Tables in Appendix A and Appendix B have been updated to show a comparison of the enacted FY2014 appropriations law with FY2013 post-rescission funding levels, the President's FY2014 request, and House- and Senate-recommended levels. On October 16, 2013, after 16 days of a government shutdown resulting from an appropriations lapse, Congress passed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 ( H.R. 2775 ); the President signed it into law ( P.L. 113-46 ) on October 17, 2013. ( Appendix C provides information on the impact of government shutdown on the Department of State and Foreign Aid.) The continuing resolution (CR) continued FY2013 funding levels, including previous sequestration and rescission reductions, until January 15, 2014. H.J.Res. 106 ( P.L. 113-73 ), approved by the House and Senate on January 15, extended the CR through January 18, allowing extra time for legislative consideration of an omnibus appropriation bill. The Administration's FY2014 request of $51.84 billion for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs represented about 1.4% of the total budget request for FY2014. It was 5.3% less than the FY2013 request and about 2% less than the FY2013 post-sequester funding estimate. (Unless otherwise noted, all of the FY2013 funding levels in this report reflect estimated funding levels after both sequestration and across-the-board rescissions are applied.) The Consolidated Appropriations Act, FY2014, provides total funding of $49.16 billion for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, a 7% reduction when compared with FY2013 estimates and 5.2% less than the President's FY2014 request. The total enacted amount includes $42.64 billion in core funds (for ongoing expenditures) and $6.52 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds for temporary, extraordinary expenditures in frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, as well as other congressional priorities. The State Department and related agencies request of $16.88 billion (including the mandatory Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund) represented a decline of 5.5% from the estimated FY2013 funding level of $17.86 billion. For FY2014, Congress enacted a $15.86 billion in total funding for the State Department and related agencies, representing a decline of 11.2% from the FY2013 estimated level and 6% below the President's FY2014 request. Within State-Foreign Operations, about $34.95 billion was requested for foreign operations accounts, which was a 0.2% decrease from the FY2013 estimated funding of $35.02 billion. The FY2014 foreign operations request had sought to include funding for Food for Peace programs that traditionally are funded through the Department of Agriculture appropriation. As a result, the FY2014 request for Agriculture programs within the 150 budget would have decreased dramatically from the FY2013 post-sequestration funding of $1.54 billion to $185 million. The FY2014-enacted foreign operations budget totals $33.72 billion, 3.7% below the FY2013 estimated funding and 3.5% below the President's FY2014 request. Congress did not agree to fund the Food for Peace program within the State-Foreign Operations appropriations. Since FY2012, the Administration's international affairs budget has distinguished between what it has interchangeably called "core," "base," or "enduring" funding, and funding to support "overseas contingency operations" (OCO), described in budget documents as "extraordinary, but temporary, costs of the Department of State and USAID in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan." Congress has adopted this approach, but has defined OCO more broadly. In each of the last three years, Congress has appropriated more OCO funding than requested, and for a broader range of countries and activities. For example, within the international affairs budget in FY2012, the Obama Administration requested $8.7 billion for OCO, and Congress enacted $11.2 billion. In FY2013, the Administration requested $8.2 billion for OCO, but Congress enacted $11.9 billion. The FY2014 request continues this pattern. Of the total funding requested for State-Foreign Operations in FY2014, $3.8 billion was designated as OCO, while Congress appropriated $6.5 billion (net rescissions of $426 million). On July 25, 2013, the Senate Appropriations Committee passed its FY2014 State-Foreign Operations spending bill, S. 1372 . The House Appropriations Committee approved H.R. 2855 , a State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill for FY2014, on July 30, 2013. The House bill included $40.78 billion in spending, net of rescissions, or about 21.3% below the FY2014 request and 22.9% below the FY2013 funding estimate. The Senate bill totaled $49.49 billion, which was 4.5% less than requested and 6.4% less than FY2013 funding (see Table 1 below). On January 13, 2014, after extensive negotiations, appropriations leaders reached a spending agreement and introduced a Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (an amendment to H.R. 3547 ). The conferenced bill was approved by the House on January 15 and by the Senate the next day. The President signed it into law ( P.L. 113-76 ) on January 17, 2014. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 ( P.L. 113-76 ), total funding of $49.16 billion for State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Programs is less than 1% below the Senate-proposed FY2014 level of $49.49 billion, but is 20.5% above the House-proposed total of $40.78 billion. For State Department operations and related programs, the enacted funding level of $15.86 billion is 3.6% below the Senate-proposed level of $16.46 billion, but 7.3% greater than the House-proposed total of $14.78 billion. The foreign operations FY2014-enacted funding level of $33.72 billion is 1.7% below Senate-proposed level of $34.29 billion and 26% above the House-proposed level of $26.77 billion. Congress designated a total of $6.9 billion (before rescissions) for OCO funds, of which $1.8 billion is for State operations and related programs and $5.1 billion is for foreign operations (see Figure 1 below). Account level data for each proposal are available in Appendix A . The steepest cuts in the House bill would have been applied to the foreign operations accounts (-23.4% from the request and -23.6% from the FY2013 estimate), though State Department accounts also would have been reduced significantly (-12.4% from the request and -17.2% from the FY2013 estimate). The Senate bill, in contrast, proposed relatively minimal reductions to foreign operations accounts (-1.9% from the request and -2.1% from the FY2013 estimate), but somewhat larger cuts for the State Department and related programs (-2.5% from the request and -7.8% from FY2013). Both the House and Senate bills designated about $6.5 billion as OCO funding, or 71% more than the $3.8 billion requested as OCO for FY2014. The Department of State and Related Agency accounts include funding for the personnel, operations, and programs of the Department of State; U.S. participation in international organizations, such as the United Nations, as well as small commissions such as the International Boundary and Water Commission between the United States and Mexico; U.S. government, non-military-international broadcasting; and several U.S. non-governmental agencies whose purposes also help promote U.S. interests abroad, and other U.S. commissions and interparliamentary groups more directly related to U.S. foreign policy initiatives, such as the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Funds for embassy construction, leasing or purchasing land for embassies, and embassy security activities are also included. Within State Department operations, two subaccounts contain the bulk of the overall embassy security funding: Worldwide Security Protection (WSP) within the Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP) account and Worldwide Security Upgrades (WSU) within the Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance (ESCM) account. WSP provides funding for salaries, maintenance, and software for embassy protection, whereas WSU provides funds for the brick-and-mortar type of security, as well as for construction of secure new compounds. The Administration's FY2014 request sought $16.88 billion for the State Department and Related Agency accounts, a significant decrease from FY2013 levels that was largely attributable to a large reduction in requested OCO Iraq operations funds, as the U.S. presence and footprint in that country were reduced. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 aligns with the request in that it generally provides a boost for the topline "enduring" or non-emergency operating accounts of the Department of State, while reducing emergency (OCO) funding significantly from FY2013 levels as U.S. presence in the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan continues to be reduced. For example, Diplomatic and Consular Programs (D&CP—the department's operating account) sees an overall reduction of 17.2% from FY2013 levels and 5.7% less than the Administration requested. However, the act provides 1.9% more in base (or enduring) D&CP appropriations than in FY2013 (see Table 2 below). The dangers to U.S. diplomats abroad were underscored by a number of attacks on U.S. facilities and personnel in recent years. These include the death of the U.S. Ambassador and three other U.S. personnel in an attack in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012; attacks on U.S. embassies in Egypt, Sudan, Tunisia, and Yemen, on the same day; the bombing of U.S. Embassy Ankara on February 1, 2012; and the death of U.S. Foreign Service Officer Anne Smedinghoff in Afghanistan on April 6, 2013. As a result, funding for the protection of U.S. government employees and facilities abroad has drawn particular scrutiny. In its report on the Benghazi attack, the State Department's Accountability Review Board urged State to work with Congress to increase resources for diplomatic security and allow for more flexibility in the application of those resources. In December 2012, the Secretary of State presented an Increased Security Proposal to Congress, which requested authority to transfer $1.3 billion in OCO funds previously appropriated for Iraq operations towards diplomatic security needs. Of that, $553 million would be for additional Marine security guards worldwide, $130 million for 151 new diplomatic security personnel, and $736 million for improved security at overseas facilities. While the transfer authority was not provided by the 112 th Congress, Section 1707 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013 ( H.R. 933 , P.L. 113-6 ) provided additional funding for diplomatic security ($918 million for WSP, to remain available until expended; and $1.3 billion for ESCM), while rescinding $1.1 billion in unobligated balances from FY2012 OCO funds. The Administration's FY2014 request sought to sustain the initiatives launched under the FY2013 Increased Security Proposal, including expansion of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security and further growth in the number of Marine Security Guard detachments deployed to diplomatic facilities. The request sought $2.2 billion for construction of new secure diplomatic facilities, a combination of enduring funding, OCO funding, and other agency contributions. The request for ESCM of $2.65 billion (including OCO), the State Department's second-largest administrative account, was 6% less than the FY2013 post-sequester estimate, but a 60.6% increase from the FY2012 actual level. Within this account, WSU funding would have decreased 15% from the FY2013 post-sequester estimate to $1.61 billion, but 108% above the FY2012 funding level, while Ongoing Operations would increase by 18%. WSP funds, under D&CP, would have decreased by 3% from FY2013, to $2.18 billion. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 exceeds the Administration's request for ESCM of $2.4 billion by $25 million in OCO funds, to be used to harden high-risk posts. Of the total enacted ESCM funding of $2.67 billion, $1.6 billion is for WSU. P.L. 113-76 also provides a total of $2.77 billion for Worldwide Security Protection (of which $900.3 million are OCO funds), specifying that the $585 million above the requested amount should be applied to the normalization of Iraq operations. When compared with FY2013 levels, however, the ESCM account shows a reduction of 5.1% (or approximately $145 million). WSP funds would grow by $517 million or 23% over FY2013 levels. Many observers suggest that the Department of State chronically faces significant personnel shortfalls, a situation worsened in recent years by a growing number of overseas positions to fill. The ranks of mid-level Foreign Service officers (FSOs) are particularly thin, forcing junior personnel to serve in assignments meant for personnel of higher rank. In the past few years, to address this deficiency as well as the need to better train its employees, the State Department increased hiring under its Diplomacy 3.0 initiative, growing the FS by approximately 18%; however, hiring slowed significantly in FY2011-FY2012 due to budget constraints. The Administration's FY2014 request sought to grow its Human Resources account (under Diplomatic & Consular Programs) to a total of $2.60 billion. While it planned 186 new positions altogether for FY2014, 151 of these were to be funded by consular fees and devoted to meeting increasing visa demand. The remaining 35 new positions (30 Foreign Service, 5 Civil Service) for which State sought appropriated funding were to be focused on the "re-balance" to Asia and to staffing the Secretary's Office of the Coordinator for Cyber Issues. As a point of comparison, the State Department had requested appropriations for 121 new positions in its FY2013 request and for 133 in its FY2012 request. Among its additional initiatives to address workforce needs, the department sought $81.4 million in FY2014 funding to provide an overseas comparability pay (OCP) adjustment intended to bring the base pay of Foreign Service personnel posted overseas to levels comparable to their Foreign Service colleagues serving in Washington, DC, who receive locality pay. OCP advocates argue that the discrepancy affects morale and retention of FSOs and acts as a financial disincentive to serve overseas, including by its cumulative impact on retirement pay. The requested funding would have provided a third and final tranche of the OCP adjustment; two-thirds of the gap was addressed through prior year funding. The department's similar FY2013 request for the OCP adjustment was not supported by Congress. The 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act provides $2.36 billion for the Human Resources account, or 9.2% less than was requested. The act explicitly does not fund the new positions requested by the department, directing the Secretary instead to reassign vacant or lower-priority positions to meet these higher priorities (and signaling a willingness to consider requests by the Secretary to redirect funds for additional positions). The act also prohibits implementation of the third phase of OCP, while allowing previous OCP adjustments to continue. The Administration's FY2014 budget request envisioned sharply reduced State Operations resources for the frontline states of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. In Iraq, the Department of State became the lead agency for all U.S. programs after the departure of U.S. military forces in late 2011. An initially ambitious presence was rapidly drawn down since then; the request indicated intent to further reduce the State Department's footprint and hand over additional sites to the Iraqi government. Including foreign assistance, the Administration requested $1.18 billion for its activities in Iraq, including $650 million in Ongoing Operations OCO funding. The request sought $2.4 billion less than the FY2012 actual level. The U.S. presence in Afghanistan is also rapidly evolving as the international combat mission is slated to end in 2014. The President's overall budget request for Afghanistan was $3.1 billion, including $2.2 billion in assistance and $900 million to support decreasing numbers of civilian personnel under the State Department presence. Ongoing operations OCO funding under the request would have decreased by $710 million from FY2012 levels. Funds requested for Pakistan, including foreign assistance, totaled $1.3 billion. OCO funding for Ongoing Operations ($0.04 billion) would have decreased by 61% compared to FY2012 funding. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014 provides $491 million in D&CP/OCO funding for ongoing operations for the three frontline states of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. When combined with $419 million in unobligated FY2013D &CP appropriations, appropriators judge that the total of nearly $910 million should be sufficient to meet operational costs in these countries. The combined total operational funding represents 43% less than what the Administration requested. The act also rescinds $427 million in prior year unobligated D&CP balances from the frontline states' accounts due to reduced diplomatic and development footprints in there. In the fall of 2011, the Obama Administration announced its intent to expand and intensify the already significant U.S. role in the Asia-Pacific, particularly in Southeast and South Asia. Goals underpinning this "rebalancing"—or "pivot"—to Asia include tapping into the economic dynamism of the region and influencing the development of the Asia-Pacific's norms and rules, particularly as China's regional influence grows. To this end, the Administration has, among other actions, announced new military deployments to and partnerships with Australia, Singapore, and the Philippines; joined the East Asia Summit; and secured progress in negotiations with 10 other nations to form a Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement. With some critics suggesting that the "rebalancing" has, to date, been overly focused on military deployments and initiatives, the FY2014 request emphasized the State Department's role in resourcing the re-balancing to Asia. In addition to a 7% increase in foreign assistance to the region, compared to FY2012, the department sought 29 new positions (of which 22 were to be Foreign Service) with the intention of deploying additional Economic and Political/Military officers at key posts across Asia. The request sought $420 million for operations in support of initiatives such as new facilities in China, Laos, Papua New Guinea, and Burma. As noted above, the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act does not fund the new positions requested by the Administration for FY2014, including those for the Asia rebalance. The act directs the Secretary instead to seek to reassign vacant or lower-priority positions to meet these higher priorities. The act further calls for the Secretary to submit, on behalf of the interagency, an "integrated, multi-year planning and budget strategy for a rebalancing of United States policy in Asia that links United States interest in the region with the necessary resources and personnel required for implementation, management, and oversight of such strategy." The Foreign Operations budget funds most traditional foreign aid programs, including bilateral economic aid, multilateral aid, security assistance, and export promotion programs. It has not traditionally funded food aid. Funding for U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) operations is also part of the foreign operations budget. The FY2014 request of $34.95 billion for these programs was almost level with the FY2013 estimated funding. However, this total included funding for food aid programs that are not currently funded through foreign operations accounts. The FY2014 request for total foreign assistance, including both foreign operations and food aid accounts, was about 4% below the FY2013 estimate. Congress did not accept the proposed food aid changes and enacted an FY2014 foreign operations appropriation of $33.72 billion, a 3.7% cut from the FY2013 funding level. Breaking the request down by appropriations title shows proposed shifts in foreign assistance programming, and congressional response, at the broad level ( Table 3 ): Bilateral Economic Assistance, including funding for independent agencies, made up about 64.5% of the FY2014 foreign assistance request, and would have increased such assistance by about 3% over FY2013 estimates. Much of the proposed growth could be attributed to changes in food aid funding and a proposed new $580 million Middle East North Africa Incentive Fund (MENA IF). The FY2014 appropriation provides $22.08 billion for bilateral economic assistance, just slightly below FY2013 funding, and does not include a MENA IF or adopt proposed changes in food aid. Security assistance accounted for about 24% of the proposed foreign aid budget, representing a 6% cut from the FY2013 post-sequester estimate. Almost every security assistance account would have been reduced compared to FY2013 estimates. However, total enduring security assistance funds would have increased 11% from FY2013, while OCO funds would have decreased by 60%, reflecting an Administration effort to shift security assistance away from OCO for frontline states and into enduring activities. The FY2014-enacted appropriation provides a total of $8.51 billion for security assistance, slightly less than the request, but with 34% more funding than the request designated as OCO. Multilateral aid made up about 9% of the foreign aid budget request, and would have increased by about 11% over FY2013-estimated levels. Congress enacted a much smaller increase for FY2014, about 3% over FY2013, for a total of $2.96 billion. Many of the top 10 recipients of foreign assistance would have been the same under the FY2014 request as in FY2013 ( Table 4 ). The top recipient list is dominated by strategic allies in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, as well as top global health program recipients in Africa. Under the request, Israel would have continued to be the top U.S. aid recipient, at $3.1 billion, a $157 million increase over FY2013 funding. Afghanistan would have again ranked second among recipients, though with a slightly smaller allocation compared to FY2013. Egypt and Pakistan would both continue to be top recipients of security assistance, though aid disbursements may be impacted by restrictions related to the current events. Together, the top 10 recipients would account for about 37% of total bilateral economic and security assistance funds in both FY2013 and the FY2014 budget proposal. Full country allocations for the FY2014-enacted appropriation are not yet available, but some account allocations are specified in the FY2014 explanatory statement. For example, Congress designated $3.1 billion of FY2014 Foreign Military Financing (FMF) funding for Israel. Political transitions and unrest in the Middle East and North Africa may have significant implications for U.S. national security goals, including protecting global oil supplies, enhancing intelligence/military cooperation, ensuring military access and force projection, and promoting Arab-Israeli peace. The rise of new leaders in the region represents both risks and opportunities, as the Administration and lawmakers consider how to respond in a manner that best promotes U.S. strategic interests and democratic values. For FY2013, the Administration had requested an appropriation of $770 million (of which $700 million was new funding) to create a new Middle East North Africa Incentive Fund (MENA IF) that would provide flexible resources to meet diverse and rapidly evolving needs in the region. Congress neither authorized nor appropriated any MENA IF funding in the FY2013 continuing resolutions. In the 112 th Congress, House and Senate Foreign Operations Appropriations bills differed over MENA IF. A Senate bill ( S. 3241 ) would have funded it at $1 billion for MENA IF, while a corresponding House measure ( H.R. 5857 ) would not fund it at all, proposing instead $200 million for Middle East response spending. Some lawmakers expressed significant reservations about the broad spending authorities sought by the Administration's MENA-IF proposal as well as assisting some entities that would have been likely candidates for MENA IF assistance. For FY2014, the Administration again requested funding for a MENA IF. The request called for $580 million, of which $105 million would be for the existing Middle East Partnership Initiative and USAID Middle East Regional Office. The Administration request did not specify how the funds would be allocated, but explained that they would be used to support interventions such as "support to Syrian opposition, humanitarian assistance, Enterprise Funds, and loan guarantees" that are already being funded in the region through reallocations of existing funds, "at great opportunity cost." The MENA IF, the Administration asserted, would increase flexibility and transparency with respect to these activities, and "begin to address the imbalance between our security and economic assistance in the region." The FY2014 House bill provided no funds for a MENA IF account, but noted that OCO funds may be used for stabilization and response efforts in the MENA region, in addition to Iraq, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. The Senate legislation did not include a MENA IF account either, but recommended $575 billion for a Complex Foreign Crisis Fund (a modified version of the existing Complex Crisis Fund), which incorporated some of the authorities requested for a MENA IF. P.L. 113-76 , the FY2014 appropriations legislation, does not include funding for a MENA IF account or additional funding or authorities for the Complex Crisis Fund for MENA response. The explanatory statement accompanying the bill, however, notes that OCO funds may be used for stabilization and response efforts in the Middle East and North Africa. As described earlier, since FY2012, the Administration's international affairs budget has distinguished between what it has interchangeably called "core," "base," or "enduring," funding and funding to support "overseas contingency operations" (OCO), described in budget documents as "extraordinary, but temporary, costs of the Department of State and USAID in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan." In FY2012, Congress increased foreign operations funds designated as OCO by 52% over the requested level, including funds for Somalia, Yemen, and Kenya. The FY2013 full-year CR included unrequested OCO funds for disaster assistance and migration and refugees assistance, without language restricting it by country. Nearly half of FY2013 OCO funding for foreign operations was allocated for activities outside of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. For FY2014, the Administration continued with its narrower approach for the use of OCO, requesting $2.31 billion in foreign operations OCO funds, almost all for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. This represented a 68% decline from the FY2013 estimated OCO funding of $7.33 billion. In P.L. 113-76 , Congress designated $5.13 billion in FY2014 foreign operations funds as OCO, which is more than double the amount requested by the Administration but about 30% below FY2013 OCO funding. In keeping with its broader interpretation of OCO, Congress noted that the funds could be used for "contingency operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq; stabilization and response efforts, including in the Middle East and North Africa; and other programs that address counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and humanitarian crisis." Although country allocations for FY2014 are not yet available, the scaled down diplomatic and development presence in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that, as in FY2013, OCO funding will be used in FY2014 to support a broad range of humanitarian and security assistance activities in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. Table 5 compares requested and enacted foreign operations OCO for FY2012, FY2013, and FY2014. The International Affairs budget has supported international food assistance for decades, primarily through the Food for Peace (donated U.S. agricultural commodities) and Food for Education (school feeding and maternal, infant, and child nutrition) programs. Unlike most foreign assistance, these programs have been authorized in farm bills and received funding through the Agriculture appropriations. In recent years, appropriations to these two programs totaled more than $1.5 billion annually. Development professionals have long raised concerns about the efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. food assistance, which is subject to several restrictions. With some exceptions, Food for Peace commodities must be bought from U.S. producers and shipped on U.S. vessels. In recent years, the U.S. Department of Agriculture operated a pilot project to evaluate local and regional procurement of food aid commodities, while USAID carried out cash-based food security assistance (local and regional purchase, cash vouchers, cash transfers) through the International Disaster Assistance program (up to $300 million). While most U.S. food aid is used to provide emergency humanitarian relief, some food aid commodities are provided to U.S. nongovernmental organizations to be sold ("monetized") on local or regional markets and the proceeds used for development programs related to hunger and nutrition. Critics contend that U.S. procurement and shipping requirements, together with monetization practices, make food aid highly inefficient and ineffective. In the FY2014 budget, the Administration requested $1.82 billion for international food aid in three accounts. Under the food aid reform, the Administration proposed to shift $1.1 billion of Food for Peace funds to the International Disaster and Famine Assistance account for emergency food response. As proposed, 55% of this funding, about $600 million, would still have been used in FY2014 to procure and ship U.S. produced commodities. Together with $300 million of International Disaster and Famine Assistance (IDA) funds for cash-based food security programs, total emergency food aid would have been $1.4 billion in FY2014. The Administration's budget also proposed to shift $250 million to the Development Assistance (DA) account for a Community Development and Resilience Fund (CDRF). Feed the Future funding of $80 million would have been used to augment the CRDF, making its total $330 million. The CDRF would have effectively replaced the current $400 million "safe box" for nonemergency development food aid provided in the 2008 farm bill. Presumably, U.S. nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that currently carry out food aid programs would have participated in these CDRF programs. The Administration maintained that by removing cost inefficiencies of the Food for Peace program, such as monetization, the same level of nonemergency program activity would be supported and more people would be reached. Finally, the Administration's FY2014 budget proposed to create a new Emergency Food Assistance Contingency Fund ($75 million) to provide emergency food assistance for unexpected and urgent food needs. In the FY2014 appropriation, Congress rejected the proposed reforms to food aid funding and implementation practices. P.L. 113-76 continues to fund food aid through the traditional accounts in the agriculture appropriation, providing $1.466 billion for the Food for Peace, Title II program and $185.13 million for the McGovern-Dole Food for Education program, a 7.5% increase, in total, over the FY2013 funding. Humanitarian assistance is intended to save lives and meet basic human needs in the wake of natural disasters and conflicts. In FY2012, humanitarian assistance funding in the foreign operations accounts totaled $4.56 billion. The FY2013 full-year continuing resolution increased funding over the FY2012 level for two key humanitarian assistance accounts. International Disaster & Famine Assistance (IDA) increased from $1.10 billion to an estimated $1.55 billion (post-sequester estimate), with the increased funds designated as OCO. The Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA) account increased from $1.98 billion to $2.70 billion (post-sequester estimate), also with OCO funds. In addition, the Administration transferred $200 million of previously appropriated OCO funds in the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Fund to the MRA account ($100 million) and IDA account ($120 million) to respond to the crisis in Syria. The Administration's FY2014 foreign operations budget included $4.13 billion for humanitarian assistance accounts, including $1.76 billion for MRA, $2.05 billion for IDA, $250 million for Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (of which $200 million was specifically for Syria), and $75 million for a new Emergency Food Assistance Contingency Fund (EFACF). Of the IDA funds, $629 million were allocated to USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance to respond to natural disaster, civil strife, food security, and displaced populations. The remaining $1.42 billion was designated for Food for Peace activities currently funded through the Agriculture appropriation (see Food Aid above). In total, the humanitarian assistance request was about 27% below the FY2013 post-sequester estimate, due in part to $250 million in food aid being moved to the Development Assistance account. The FY2014 appropriation, P.L. 113-76 , provides $1.80 billion for IDA, $3.06 billion for MRA, and $50 million for ERMA. As discussed above, the legislation did not adopt proposed reforms to food aid programs, provided no funding for the proposed EFACF, and continued to appropriate food assistance through agriculture accounts. In total, the foreign operations accounts included $4.91 billion in humanitarian assistance, a nearly 15% increase over FY2013 funding and almost 19% more than the Administration requested. The explanatory statement describes the increase as intended to address acute humanitarian needs related to Syrian refugees in Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon. The Obama Administration introduced three major foreign assistance initiatives in 2009 and 2010—the Global Health Initiative, the Food Security Initiative (Feed the Future), and the Global Climate Change Initiative—which continued to be priorities in the FY2014 budget request. Global Health Initiative. The request included $8.315 billion for global health programs, a 3% increase over the FY2013 post-sequester estimate. The FY2014 appropriation includes $8.439 billion in the global health account, a 4.7% increase over FY2013 funding and $1.5% more than the FY2014 request. The sub-allocations outlined in the explanatory statement are similar to those in the request for the largest programs, such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, and maternal and child health, but differ notably for a few priorities: tuberculosis (+24%), neglected tropical disease (+18%), and nutrition (+21%). Food Security Initiative. Feed the Future (FtF) is the Administration's food security initiative, designed to support long-term country-led agricultural growth and nutrition plans. For FY2014, the Administration requested a total of $1.191 billion for Feed the Future across several appropriations account, a 9% increase over the FY2012 funding. (FY2013 data are not yet available.) Increased funding would be channeled to economic resilience activities in regions of Africa facing chronic food insecurity. A general provision in the FY2014 appropriations legislation provides that "not less than" $1.1 billion appropriated through bilateral economic assistance accounts should be used for food security and agricultural development activities. Global Climate Change Initiative (GCCI). The GCCI would have decreased 2% from FY2012 funding (FY2013 data are not yet available), including a $100 million transfer from ESF, under the Administration's FY2014 request of $837 million. Within that total, bilateral clean energy funding would have increased by 7% and adaptation programs by 1%, while sustainable landscapes funding would have been reduced by 10%. Total U.S. contributions to World Bank climate accounts would have decreased by 6% if the $100 million ESF transfer to these funds is calculated into the FY2012 funding total. The FY2014 appropriation for GCCI programs is unclear, as the funding directives within the ESF and DA accounts, through which the majority of GCCI funding flows, do not mention climate activities. Appendix A. State-Foreign Operations Appropriations, by Account Appendix B. International Affairs (150) Function Account, FY2012-FY2014 Appendix C. Government Shutdown Effects on the Department of State and Foreign Aid FY2014 began on October 1, 2013, with a partial government shutdown because Congress had not passed any appropriations bills for FY2014 and could not agree to differing House and Senate terms for a continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government funded. State operations and foreign assistance programs generally continued to operate because of two-year funding for the Department of State's Diplomatic and Consular Programs account that funds salaries and expenses and the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID's) Operating Expenses account. In addition to residual FY2013 and prior year money, trust funds, fees, permanent appropriations, and the Working Capital Fund remained available. In contrast, the Office of Inspector General, the International Boundary and Water Commission, and reportedly the American Sections of the International Joint Commission and International Boundary Commission operate on single-year appropriations and did shut down until the CR became law. Since the majority of foreign aid programs operate with multi-year or no-year funding, most foreign aid continued to flow. Activities within these programs, however, were limited by prohibitions on new grants and cooperative agreements as well as restrictions on travel, training, and representational events, among other things. These applied to programs such as State's global health activities, migration and refugee assistance, and democracy promotion funds. A few foreign aid programs operate with single-year appropriations but, according to Department of State officials, were able to operate on FY2013 money. U.S. security assistance programs, including International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing (FMF), and Peacekeeping Operations (PKO), with small exceptions, were funded only through FY2013. If there had been another significant gap in FY2014 funding, more immediate impacts might have been felt by the recipients of these programs, such as Israel, as might U.S. support to the peacekeeping mission in the Sinai, according to the Department of State. Multilateral assistance within the International Organizations and Programs (IO&P) account also typically is funded with one-year appropriations. A lack of FY2014 funding for this account could have delayed U.S. voluntary contributions to such international entities as the U.N. Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the U.N. Development Program (UNDP). If there had been another government shutdown and the balance of FY2013 funding were insufficient, these programs funded entirely through single-year appropriations would have shut down until a new appropriation was enacted or unless they were deemed by the relevant Chief of Mission to be necessary for the safety of human life or protection of government property or for the "conduct of foreign affairs essential to national security." A delay in FY2014 funding could have affected recipients of these programs immediately. If another shutdown had occurred in FY2014 and funds lapsed, both the Department of State and USAID might have instituted procedures to cease operations other than "excepted" functions—those essential to national security, including the conduct of foreign affairs. Among other restrictions, a hiring freeze would have remained in place and new security investigations would have been suspended. The Foreign Service Institute would have closed and training would not have been authorized. In addition, the department would have restricted a number of allowances, including representation allowances (reimbursement for expenses while on official commission overseas), education allowances, and educational travel, unless the travel was necessary for human safety. In addition to those, unpaid allowances for non-excepted positions could also have included include post differential (such as hardship posts) and danger pay, according to the department.

On April 10, 2013, the Obama Administration submitted to Congress its budget request for FY2014. The request for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs totaled $51.84 billion, which was about 2% below the FY2013 post-sequester estimated funding level of $52.88 billion. Within the request, $3.81 billion was designated as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding, which was 68% below FY2013-estimated OCO funding of $11.92 billion. Of the total request, $16.88 billion was for State Department Operations and related agencies, a 5.8% decline from the FY2013 funding estimate of $17.86 billion. About $34.95 billion was for Foreign Operations, a 0.2% decrease from the FY2013 estimate of $35.02 billion. After enacting appropriations for FY2014 with continuing resolutions in late 2013-early 2014, Congress completed action on, and the President signed, the Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 3547/P.L. 113-76) in mid-January 2014. This report provides a brief overview of the FY2014 State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Programs funding request, as well as top-line analysis of House and Senate State-Foreign Operations appropriations proposals, enacted continuing resolutions, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76). It does not provide information or analysis on specific provisions in the House and Senate legislation. Tables in Appendix A and Appendix B provide side-by-side account-level funding data for FY2013, the FY2014 request, House- and Senate-proposed totals, and the enacted FY2014 funding levels in the Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 3547/P.L. 113-76). The FY2013 funding data used as a point of comparison throughout this report represent post-sequestration estimates provided by the Department of State and reflect across-the-board rescissions.

If you’re going to creative a new piece of work, you need to bear in mind that once it’s out there, anyone can try and claim that the work belongs to them and not you. In fact, there are some intellectual con artists, for a lack of a better term, who go around looking for ideas to steal from budding artists. Imagine what that must be like for a new artist who’s just coming into the scene with his or her creative work. Intellectual property is stolen not just from artists, it’s also stolen from students, researches and corporations. These matters will become a game of “he said, she said” in front of the authorities if you don’t know how to handle them right. On this page, we’ll walk you through some of the things that you ought to know about patents so that you can protect your intellectual property in any form. Once you have a patent protecting your ideas, you have legal power to sue anyone who tries to steal your work through an Incubate IP lawyer. A patent is what gives you the right to stop others from copying your work and stealing your intellectual property without your consent first. Of course, you may sell this permission to use your work to some people. It’s thanks to the power of patents that a lot of businesses are able to sell a product that they developed without any other business high jacking the product for their own gain. If your work is patent protected, there are a very few people out there foolish enough to try and use it without your permission or without explicitly making it known that the work is yours and not theirs. ||||| Joi “S.J.” Harris was a pro motorcycle racer with a deep passion for the sport and the adrenalin rush it provides. But a ride in downtown Vancouver Monday morning while filming for Deadpool 2 — reportedly Harris’s first film as a stunt driver — took a tragic turn. Witnesses say the female stunt driver had been manoeuvring a motorcycle down a set of stairs at Jack Poole Plaza when she lost control of her bike, jumped a curb and crashed into a glass window at Shaw Tower around 8 a.m. A crumpled motorcycle could be seen lying on its side surrounded by broken glass. Crew members appeared distraught and one was in tears. In a recording of the 911 call posted on TMZ, the caller could be heard saying an actor had gone “airborne” through a window into a building across the street and “hasn’t been moving.” The stunt driver was treated by ambulance personnel but died at the scene. The B.C. Coroners Service and WorkSafeBC are investigating. According to Deadline Hollywood, an online magazine reporting on the entertainment industry, Harris was not wearing a helmet when the accident occurred because her character was not wearing one in the movie. Production on the superhero sequel was shut down immediately, and there was no word Monday on when filming would resume. Harris was performing a stunt by Domino, a new character in the Marvel sequel. The part is played by actor Zazie Beetz. “We are deeply saddened by the accident that occurred on the set of Deadpool 2 this morning,” 20th Century Fox spokesman told Deadline. “Our hearts and prayers are with the family, friends and colleagues of our crew member during this difficult time.” Nathan Kramchynski works on the seventh floor of the Shaw Tower and said he had been watching rehearsals of the stunt at the Vancouver Convention Centre. When the accident happened, the driver appeared to pick up speed, crossed the street and swerved to avoid pedestrians before disappearing from his view, said Kramchynski. Related “She lost control really quickly. It happened in a split second,” he said. “She was going full throttle and then there’s a building there.” Deadpool 2, a sequel to the 2016 blockbuster starring Vancouver actor Ryan Reynolds, has been shooting in Vancouver since June 26. Ryan expressed his condolences to his crew member’s family and friends Monday afternoon. “We’re heartbroken, shocked and devastated … but recognize nothing can come close to the grief and inexplicable pain her family and loved ones must feel in this moment,” wrote Reynolds on Instagram. “My heart pours out to them — along with each and every person she touched in this world.” According to her website, Harris got hooked on motorcycles after she rode in the back of a bike driven by a friend. She got her race licence in 2013 and began racing in 2014, and described herself as the first African-American woman to compete in an American Motorcyclist Association-sanctioned event. Harris’s love for motorcycle racing is evident on her website and social media accounts, which contain many photos of her in gear and on the track. In 2015, Harris told magazine Black Girls Ride magazine that her goal was to bring road racing to more women and more African-Americans. Harris was injured during a race in May and broke her left wrist bone. After the accident, Harris wrote about her “life-saving” helmet and expressed determination she’ll ride again: “My throttle hand is still good. This is motorcycle road racing. You either do it or you don’t. Hold your line.” News of Harris’s death sent ripples of grief and shock across the racing community. “My heart is broken. Hold your loved ones close. Tomorrow is not promised,” wrote Porsche Taylor of Black Girls Ride on Facebook. Taylor declined an interview, saying they were mourning the loss of a sister. WorkSafeBC spokeswoman Trish Knight Chernecki said two officers are investigating to see if there are any immediate health or safety concerns, while three other officers are investigating the cause of the fatality and future prevention. Findings on any immediate health or safety concerns could be available within several days, while the investigation on the cause of the mishap usually takes longer, she said. Allan Webber was among those who came to the accident scene to observe as investigators assessed the scene then uprighted the stunt bike with its crumpled front tire. “It’s like a cursed corner,” Webber said of the area, noting that just the day before the crash, one man died and two were injured in a bus accident down the street, and in 2013, actor Cory Monteith died in a neighbouring hotel. Webber said he had previously watched the stuntwoman successfully complete a ride down Thurlow Street. Jason Cameron, a business agent with the Union of B.C. Performers, would not confirm if the stunt woman was one of their members, pending official confirmation of her identity by authorities. The UBCP represents 6,000 people who work as actors, stunt performers, singers and voice actors. He said a union representative headed out to the set after hearing news of the accident. Trauma counselling will be available, he said. Cameron said despite Monday’s tragic accident, performing stunts is very safe. “The nature of stunt performing is it is very dangerous but we are also talking about skilled and trained stunt performers who perform these very dangerous stunts in a safe way,” he said. “These very complicated sequences and stunts happen on film sets all the time. (Accidents are) pretty rare considering how often stunts like this are performed. It’s exceedingly rare which is a test to the skill level.” [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] With files from The Canadian Press, Gord Hoekstra, Matt Robinson CLICK HERE to report a typo. Is there more to this story? We’d like to hear from you about this or any other stories you think we should know about. Email [email protected] ||||| Rating is available when the video has been rented. This feature is not available right now. Please try again later. ||||| The stuntwoman who died on the set of Deadpool 2 Monday has been identified. Joi “SJ” Harris, who billed herself as the first African-American female road racer, died while performing a motorcycle stunt in Vancouver, Canada, PEOPLE confirmed. Get push notifications with news, features and more. The Brooklyn, New York native was an advocate for women of color in the road racing game, and promoted herself as “the first licensed African American women in U.S. history to actively compete in sanctioned motorcycle road racing events.” The video below, posted to her website, shows her first ever race crash. On Friday, Harris updated her Facebook with a selfie, writing, “EVERYTHING FOR A REASON. #staythecourse.” Harris is thought to be the stunt double for Zazie Beetz. A woman donning the costume for the mutant Domino, whom Beetz plays in the film, was spotted on a black Ducati motorcycle in the area for a sequence days earlier. “Today, we tragically lost a member of our crew while filming Deadpool,” the film’s star, Ryan Reynolds tweeted. “We’re heartbroken, shocked and devastated… but recognize nothing can come close to the grief and inexplicable pain her family and loved ones must feel in this moment. My heart pours out to them — along with each and every person she touched in this world.” “I’m deeply saddened by the loss of one of our stunt performers today,” Deadpool 2 director David Leitch said in a statement to PEOPLE. “No words can express how I and the rest of the Deadpool 2 crew feel about this tragedy. Our thoughts are with her family, friends and loves ones in this difficult time.” This was Harris’s first film as a stunt performer, according to Deadline, which reported that she was not wearing a helmet during the scene because her character does not wear a helmet. SJ Harris Instagram Witness of Deadpool 2 crash: motorbike picked up speed, missed pedestrians https://t.co/W237VlDggr pic.twitter.com/cyDhCZSmvP — Metro Vancouver (@vancouvermetro) August 14, 2017 “We are deeply saddened by the accident that occurred on the set of Deadpool 2 this morning,” 20th Century Fox said in a statement. “Our hearts and prayers are with the family, friends and colleagues of our crew member during this difficult time.” The Vancouver Sun reported that the accident occurred just after 8 a.m. on Monday. Witnesses told the outlet that the stuntwoman lost control of her bike during a stunt, jumped a curb and crashed through a plate-glass window at Shaw Tower. She was reportedly treated by ambulance personnel but police said she died at the scene. According to Metro News, the stunt driver narrowly missed hitting two pedestrians when she lost control of the bike. Ambulance has left set of Deadpool 2 with injured stunt person. Lights and sirens were not on as it pulled away. @CTVVancouver pic.twitter.com/iMheLitA7q — Ben Miljure (@CTVNewsBen) August 14, 2017 An eyewitness told the outlet that the stunt driver completed several rehearsals of the stunt, which involved driving a motorcycle down two ramps across several stairs, earlier that morning. “She came out, went down the two flights of stairs, and it looked like she kind of hit the throttle because she picked up speed,” Nathan Kramchynski told Metro News. “She was going full throttle,” he added, noting that it appeared as if the driver “missed two pedestrians” during the failed stunt. CTV News reported that the lights and sirens of the ambulance were not turned on as it pulled away with the stuntwoman on board. ||||| WRITETHRU, 4:50 PM: A rookie stuntwoman who was killed in a motorcycle crash on the Vancouver set of Deadpool 2 has been identified as the first African-American female professional road racer. Joi “SJ” Harris was doing her first film as a stunt performer, Deadline has learned. A spokesman for ACTRA confirmed her identity to Deadline, though she is not a member of the Canadian actors union. Joi Harris via Facebook Production on the superhero sequel was shut down immediately after the fatality, and there’s no word on when filming will resume. It’s the second on-set death in North America in a month; John Bernecker suffered massive head injuries in a fall July 12 on the set of The Walking Dead and died shortly afterward. Details still are coming in, but witnesses said the crew was filming a stunt sequence when Harris lost control of her motorcycle and crashed through a plate-glass window at Shaw Tower on West Waterfront Road near Jack Poole Plaza. The stuntwoman was playing the Domino character in the sequence in the Ryan Reynolds superhero sequel. Actress Zazie Beetz is playing Domino in Deadpool 2. Reynolds tweeted a photo of Beetz in character two weeks ago. A source close to the situation said Harris, who was an experienced road racer, had been rehearsing the stunt all day Saturday. A studio production source said that there were “two full days of rehearsals over the weekend, and on Monday, they ran the stunt five-plus times before filming.” An eyewitness told Deadline that, on the last take, the bike seemed to accelerate when it was supposed to slow as she took the corner. Harris was not wearing a helmet when the accident occurred today because the Domino character did not wear one in the scene. Deadline has been told that the crew is enduring very long hours — that includes weekends — and that workers feel like they are being run ragged. “People are exhausted by the schedule,” one crew member told Deadline, noting that they were working multiple 16-hour days in a row. That, however, is disputed by a studio production source, who said the daily shooting schedule on the Vancouver set is 12-13 hours, and there were only two 15-plus-hour days, about three weeks ago. Reynolds said he was “devastated” by Harris’ death. Producer Simon Kinberg had no comment when contacted by Deadline. David Leitch, director of Deadpool 2 said in a statement to Deadline: “I’m deeply saddened by the loss of one of our stunt performers today. No words can express how I and the rest of the Deadpool 2 crew feel about this tragedy. Our thoughts are with her family, friends and loved ones in this difficult time.” A 20th Century Fox spokesman told Deadline: “We are deeply saddened by the accident that occurred on the set of Deadpool 2 this morning. Our hearts and prayers are with the family, friends and colleagues of our crew member during this difficult time.” Joi Harris via Facebook According to her online bio, Harris began motorcycle riding in Brooklyn and in 2013 — after logging more than 1,500 training hours — became the first African American woman licensed to actively compete in American Motorcyclist Association races. An injury from an on-track crash while training for her first race forced Harris to wait until 2014 to begin competing in the American Sportbike Racing Association/Championship Cup Series. Since then she had been an outspoken advocate for female racing. “I’ve learned to accept that I am not the greatest rider that exists and that there is always something to learn when on track and pushing limits,” she said on her website. “Sometimes I’m going to eat it if I’m impatient. Everything takes time. Face your fears — you never know what you can be missing out on.” The Vancouver Police Department confirmed the death on social media this morning. Law enforcement in Reynolds’ hometown said they are investigating the incident along with the BC Coroner’s Service and WorkSafeBC, British Columbia’s version of the U.S.’ Occupational Safety and Health Administration. A stunt driver has died on the set of Deadpool during a stunt on a motorcycle. VPD & @WorkSafeBC investigators are at the scene. — Vancouver Police (@VancouverPD) August 14, 2017 “We have five officers on site and two are looking at immediate occupational safety and health issues to make sure the site is safe,” Trish Knight Chernecki, senior manager for WorkSafeBC, told Deadline. “The other three officers on site are investigating the cause of the incident and the prevention of future incidents.” Andy Watson, a spokesman for the BC Coroner’s Service, told Deadline: “We have opened an investigation,” said its spokesman, “Anytime there is a fatality in the province we investigate. We have a mandate to prevent future deaths and to make any recommendations that could come from our findings.” A CTV reporter tweeted this from the site: Stunt person hurt on set of Deadpool 2 loaded into Advanced Life Support ambulance that hasn't moved. Anxious crew looking on. @CTVVancouver pic.twitter.com/iTU2awp7Qs — Ben Miljure (@CTVNewsBen) August 14, 2017 Ambulance has left set of Deadpool 2 with injured stunt person. Lights and sirens were not on as it pulled away. @CTVVancouver pic.twitter.com/iMheLitA7q — Ben Miljure (@CTVNewsBen) August 14, 2017 Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson said the city will continue to support the filming there when the crew recovers from the emotional trauma. “We are extremely saddened to hear of the tragic incident that took the life of a stuntwoman working on the set of Deadpool 2 downtown earlier today,” he said in a statement. “Our condolences go out to her family and friends, and to all those working on set who have been impacted by the loss of their colleague. We will continue to support the crew and production as they work to recover emotionally and as they continue their next phase of filming.” As previously mentioned, today’s accident marks the second stunt-related on-set death in North America in about a month; stuntman John Bernecker suffered massive head injuries in a fall July 12 on the set of The Walking Dead and later died at Atlanta Medical Center. That was believed to be the first stunt-related death in the United States in more than 17 years. The veteran stuntman was doing a fight scene for the zombie apocalypse drama with actor Austin Amelio on a balcony when he fell about 30 feet to a concrete floor, just missing the safety pad and landing on his head and neck. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration and SAG-AFTRA opened investigations into Bernecker’s death. Mike D’Aquino, a spokesman for the regional OSHA office in Atlanta, said that the investigation could take up to six months to complete. The Coweta County Coroner’s Office and Sheriff’s Department have ruled the death an accident and closed their respective cases into the matter. AMC temporarily halted production on Season 8 of the zombie apocalypse series in the wake of the accident. Erik Pedersen contributed to this report.

The motorcycle stuntwoman who was killed on the Deadpool 2 set has been identified as Joi "SJ" Harris, who was working on her first film, reports Deadline Hollywood. Harris lost control of her motorcycle while filming a scene in Vancouver and crashed through a plate-glass window. She wasn't wearing a helmet because the character she was portraying ("Domino," played by actress Zazie Beetz) didn't have one, either, according to the report. The accident happened shortly after she drove down stairs at the city's Jack Poole Plaza, reports the Vancouver Sun. “It happened in a split second,” says one witness not involved with the movie. "She was going full throttle and then there’s a building there.” The accident remains under investigation. "We’re heartbroken, shocked and devastated," tweeted star Ryan Reynolds. Though it was Harris' first movie, she had lots of experience as a professional road racer, and her website bills her as the first black woman sanctioned to compete in American Motorcyclist Association events. The website even features a video of her first race crash. Harris, a native of the Bronx, also had been an advocate of getting more African-American women to join the sport, reports People. (Another stuntman was recently killed on the set of The Walking Dead.)

The Social Security Administration (SSA) manages two major federal disability programs that provide cash benefits to people with long-term disabilities—the Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs. The DI program was enacted in 1956 and provides monthly cash benefits to severely disabled workers. SSI was enacted in 1972 as an income assistance program for aged, blind, or disabled people. Disability is defined in the Social Security Act as an inability to engage in substantial gainful activity (SGA) because of a severe physical or mental impairment. Both programs use the same criteria and procedures for determining whether the severity of an applicant’s impairment qualifies him or her for disability benefits. In 1995, 5.7 million disabled workers and their dependents received about $40.2 billion in DI benefits; 4.7 million disabled or blind SSI claimants received about $21.1 billion in SSI benefits. From the 6.8 million recipients in 1988, overall program enrollment has increased by more than 50 percent. In fiscal year 1995, SSA spent $3 billion on these two programs, more than half of the agency’s total administrative expenses for the year. Nevertheless, the agency has acknowledged that it has had difficulty providing a satisfactory level of service to its disability claimants. The process is slow, labor-intensive, and paper-reliant. Despite efforts to manage this workload with shrinking resources, SSA has not been able to keep pace with program growth. Initial claim levels remain high, appealed case backlogs are growing, and decisions are not being made in a timely manner. In fiscal year 1995, about 2.5 million initial disability claims were forwarded to state offices for disability determinations, an increase of 43 percent over fiscal year 1990. During the same period, of the applicants requesting an administrative law judge (ALJ) to reconsider a decision denied at the initial claim level, the number escalated from about 311,000 to about 589,000, an increase of 89 percent. Furthermore, SSA is concerned with the amount of time required to process claims—in many cases a claimant waits more than a year for a final disability decision. As of June 1996, processing an initial disability claim averaged 78 days for DI claims and 94 days for SSI claims; the processing time for an ALJ decision averaged 373 days. Under the current eligibility determination process, DI and SSI disability claims can pass through from one to five decision points, at which eligibility is determined. The initial claim, initial state Disability Determination Service (DDS) decision, reconsideration, ALJ hearing, Appeals Council, and federal court review all involve procedures for evidence collection, review, and decision-making. The decision points within the current disability claims process are shown in figure 1.1. To be considered eligible for either program, claimants must meet SSA’s definition of disability. Claimants must also meet work requirements for DI claims and financial eligibility requirements for SSI claims. Under both programs, applications for disability benefits can be initiated at one of SSA’s over 1,300 field offices or through SSA’s toll-free telephone system. SSA field office personnel assist with completing the application; obtaining medical, financial, and work history information; and determining whether applicants meet the nonmedical criteria for eligibility. Field offices forward claimant information, along with supporting medical evidence, to a state DDS, of which there are 54. At the DDS, medical evidence is further developed and a final decision is made as to the existence of a medically determinable impairment that meets SSA’s definition of disability. SSA funds the state DDS agencies, provides them with guidance for making disability decisions, and reviews the accuracy and consistency of their decisions. Claimants who are dissatisfied with an initial determination may request reconsideration by the DDS. A reconsideration is conducted by different staff from the original staff, but the criteria and process for determining disability are the same. Claimants who disagree with a reconsideration denial have the right to a hearing before 1 of SSA’s 1,035 ALJs in the Office of Hearings and Appeals. At these hearings, claimants and medical or vocational experts may submit additional evidence; attorneys usually represent the claimants. If denied by the ALJ, the claimant may then request a review by SSA’s Appeals Council. The Appeals Council may affirm, modify, or reverse the decision of the ALJ; the Council may also remand the case to the ALJ for further consideration or development. Finally, the claimant may appeal the Council’s decision to federal court. SSA faces increasing responsibilities in the future and must manage its growing workload with fewer resources. SSA has estimated that if it conducts business as usual, it would need the equivalent of about 76,400 workers to handle its workload by the end of the century. Instead, SSA expects to handle this work with about 62,000 workers—2,000 fewer than it has today. To successfully manage its growing workload, SSA knows that it must (1) increasingly rely on technology and (2) build a workforce with the flexibility and skills to operate in a changing environment. Concerned about managing its workload while reducing administrative costs, saving time, and improving the quality of service, SSA’s leadership decided it needed to redesign its disability claims process. To improve the process, SSA’s leadership turned to business process reengineering. SSA concluded that redesigning its process for deciding disability claims was critical to its goal of providing world-class customer service with fewer resources. In April 1994, we testified that the redesign proposal for the disability process is SSA’s first valid attempt to address major fundamental changes needed to realistically cope with the disability determination workload. We cautioned SSA, however, that many difficult implementation issues would need to be addressed. These include new staffing and training demands, development and installation of technology enhancements, and confrontation with the entrenched cultural barriers to change. Reengineering is risky by definition, but if done well it can net positive benefits for the organization. As envisioned, SSA expects the redesigned process will produce tangible savings. However, the bulk of these savings will come from more efficient use of federal and state employees to process disability claims. Greater efficiency will (1) allow the agency to use its current workforce to accomplish other pressing activities and (2) avoid hiring to replace all those who retire or otherwise leave the agency. In addition, SSA expects the redesign will result in intangibles, such as improved customer service, an empowered and better-trained workforce, and increased public confidence in SSA. When SSA proposed its redesign, it estimated that it would cost $148 million to administer, with the largest portion of these costs allocated to training activities. However, SSA estimated net savings of $704 million through fiscal year 2001—the year for which full implementation is anticipated. SSA also estimated recurring annual savings of $305 million, once the redesign is fully implemented. While success cannot be guaranteed, leading private organizations have used business process reengineering to identify and quickly put in place dramatic improvements in their operations. The objective of reengineering is to fundamentally rethink and redesign a business process from start to finish, so that it becomes more efficient and, as a result, significantly improves service to customers. There is, however, no “right” way to reengineer and no step-by-step sequence of prescribed activities. Reengineering is highly situational and should be tailored to meet the needs of each organization, according to reengineering experts. Nevertheless, today’s leaders in business process reengineering advocate certain critical success features, or best practices, to help organizations increase the likelihood of success. Case studies show that reengineering has failed to achieve the desired change, in part, because managers have not followed best practices. These practices include concentrating on a small number of initiatives at any given time for broad-scoped comprehensive projects; developing and implementing the initiatives quickly; identifying, securing, and maintaining stakeholder support; and having the organizational commitment to initiate and sustain the redesign. Concentrating on a small number of initiatives at any given time is essential. According to the experts, reengineering should remain focused to achieve rapid results. Without such focus, an organization risks becoming overwhelmed. Further, once started, the scope of the redesign should not be expanded. Trying to work on too much forces managers to choose among projects, which further dilutes the time and attention required to quickly move the redesign forward. Developing and implementing initiatives quickly is also essential. According to some reengineering experts, the time from concept formulation to realizing the first release of a reengineered process should take no more than 12 months. Other reengineering experts note that while the full value of a redesigned process may take 2 to 5 years, individual initiatives should be accomplished in a year or less. Identifying, securing, and maintaining stakeholder support is also an essential element of redesign. Stakeholders consist of individuals who are both internal and external to an organization, as well as groups that can influence the organization in some way. For SSA, internal stakeholders include the staff within the organization that will need to adapt to changes in business processes; external stakeholders include the Congress, state employees, labor unions, oversight bodies, key interest groups, customers, and others who oversee, fund, or are affected by SSA’s activities. Managers of redesign should strive to secure and maintain support of all stakeholders. Without such support throughout redesign, the chances of success can be jeopardized. Finally, having the organizational commitment to initiate and sustain redesign is another essential element. It is paramount to the success of the redesign. As a top-down process, reengineering requires strong, continuous, and committed senior executives from the beginning of the redesign. The Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Social Security, House Ways and Means Committee, asked us to provide information on the implementation challenges facing SSA as it redesigns its disability claims process. More specifically, in this report, we address SSA’s vision and progress for redesigning the disability claims process, issues related to the scope and complexity of the redesign, and the agency’s efforts to maintain stakeholder support. To develop our information, we reviewed extensive literature on the principles of reengineering. We interviewed officials at SSA headquarters and its Atlanta Regional Office. We also reviewed SSA’s extensive design, development, testing, and implementation data for the redesign. We met with the president of the National Council of Disability Determination Directors (NCDDD), who represents the 54 state DDSs, and obtained state director views on SSA’s testing and implementation activities. We also met with representatives from the Office of Management and Budget, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the National Association of Disability Examiners. We received formal briefings from SSA and state organizations on specific projects and activities related to the redesign effort. These briefings included periodic updates by the director, Disability Process Redesign Team (DPRT), on the overall redesign direction and progress; demonstrations on the development of technology enhancements; and presentations by state employee associations on the issues, progress, and problems associated with redesign. We did not assess the validity of SSA’s redesign as a means to improve services to claimants and to reduce administrative costs. Nevertheless, in the course of our work, we noted that SSA’s redesign includes features that appear sensible for a project of this nature. Two such features are (1) a single approach for all decisionmakers to use when making decisions and (2) enhanced technology to support the redesign. Our audit work was conducted from July 1995 through September 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As with many federal agencies faced with fiscal constraints and increasing demands for services, SSA recognized the need to dramatically improve its disability claims process. Consequently, SSA created an implementation plan for improving its process through 80 initiatives. By September 30, 1996, 38 of those initiatives were to be addressed. Although SSA has begun nearly all of the initiatives it planned to have under way during the first 2 years of its implementation plan, as of July 1996, SSA had (1) not completed any initiative and (2) not begun testing for 14 of the 19 initiatives that contain testing requirements. In October 1993, SSA created a Disability Reengineering Project Team to fundamentally rethink and redesign the disability determination process, so as to make it more efficient and improve service to claimants. The team was asked to redesign the process so as to better use technology to help SSA reduce the costs and time of claims processing and enable the agency to meet its workload demands with fewer resources. The team did the following: analyzed the current process; sponsored a series of general public and claimant focus groups to understand the public’s preferences relating to service; compared key aspects of the process with best practices of other public and private sector organizations; conducted independent research; and solicited ideas for improving the process from thousands of stakeholders who were involved in the disability process, including employees, health care providers, consumer advocates, and legal representatives. After extensive consultation with individuals and organizations representing the disabled, the Commissioner, in September 1994, approved SSA’s vision for redesigning the disability claims process. The redesigned, user-friendly process emphasizes making correct decisions quickly and efficiently at the earliest possible point. This process is expected to reduce average processing time: for a decision on an initial DI claim, the time would be reduced from 78 days to almost 60 and for a decision on an initial SSI claim, from 94 days to about 60. Similarly, the processing time for appealed cases is expected to be reduced from 373 to 225 days. The steps in SSA’s new process are shown in figure 2.1. The goal of the redesigned process is to guide all decisionmakers at all levels to (1) use standards from the same sources for decision-making and (2) make “correct” decisions in an easier, faster, and more cost-effective manner at the earliest possible point in the process. SSA states a correct disability decision is one that appropriately considers whether an individual meets the factors of entitlement for disability, as defined by SSA’s statute, regulations, rulings, and policies. According to SSA, correct decisions in the new process depend on these factors: a simplified decision methodology that provides a common frame of reference for determining disability by all decisionmakers in processing claims; consistent direction and training to all decisionmakers; enhanced and targeted collection and development of medical evidence; an automated and integrated claims-processing system that will assist decisionmakers in gathering evidence; a single, comprehensive quality review process; and the creation of the disability claim manager (DCM) position to give claimants direct access to the decisionmaker throughout the process and the opportunity to discuss any claim before it is disallowed. Under the redesigned process, a DCM will be the focal point for claimant contacts throughout the process and will be responsible for processing and deciding the initial claim. In the current process, these responsibilities are shared by federal claims representatives and state disability examiners. In the redesigned process, the DCM will take the initial claim, gather and retain claim information, develop medical and nonmedical evidence, share information with medical consultants, analyze information, and make the decision as to whether to allow or deny the claim. If the evidence for the initial claim does not support an allowance before denying the claim, the DCM will issue a predecision notice, advising the claimant of what evidence has been considered and providing the claimant with the opportunity to submit additional evidence. If no evidence is provided or if the evidence provided does not support an allowance, the DCM will deny the claim. Claimants who disagree with a DCM decision can appeal the decision to the Office of Hearings and Appeals. When a claimant appeals a decision, an adjudication officer (AO) will interview the claimant and become the primary contact during the appeal. This position is not available under the current process and is being introduced by SSA to make allowance decisions in less time. The AO will review the file, identify the issues in dispute, and determine whether there is a need to obtain additional evidence. The AO will also have the authority to issue a favorable decision, if warranted, or forward the completed claim to an ALJ for consideration. If, after careful review, the ALJ denies the claim, the claimant may appeal the decision to a federal district court. Throughout its effort, SSA intends to assess all redesign activities against the Commissioner’s five primary objectives for the redesign. These are making (1) the process user-friendly for claimants and their representatives, (2) the right decision the first time, (3) the decision as quickly as possible, (4) the process efficient, and (5) the work satisfying for staff. In November 1994, SSA released an extensive and complex redesign implementation plan to facilitate turning its vision into reality. The plan, to be accomplished over a 6-year period—beginning in fiscal year 1995 and concluding in fiscal year 2000—includes six lead areas, encompassing 23 process improvement features and three enablers. The lead areas are process entry and intake, disability decision methodology, medical evidence development, administrative appeals, quality assurance, and communication. The enablers, critical support structures that SSA contends are necessary for successful implementation, are developing a single presentation of all policies for determining disability, using third parties to help claimants with application packages, including completing forms and obtaining the medical evidence necessary for deciding claims. See appendix I for a description of (1) the 23 features and more details on the three enablers and (2) planned completion dates. To help direct its redesign effort, SSA established a management structure to provide leadership, oversight, and continuity throughout the testing and implementation phase. The relationship between SSA’s redesign implementation team and the Commissioner, principal deputy commissioner, and executive steering committee is shown in figure 2.2. An executive steering committee was formed to meet on a regular basis to advise the Commissioner on development of the redesigned process and to ensure the support of SSA’s senior management team. The committee includes the principal deputy commissioner and the director of the DPRT, as well as senior managers representing SSA, state, and union components. Some of these include the Office of Disability; Office of Hearings and Appeals; Office of Budget; Association of Administrative Law Judges, Inc.; and the Office of Systems Components. SSA assembled the DPRT to help direct the implementation of the redesigned disability claims process. Team leaders work full-time on the redesign and are responsible for its major components. Within the major components, designated heads of lead areas will coordinate planning and oversee implementation. These designees, as well as DPRT staff who assist them, are drawn from SSA’s federal and state workforce. Overall day-to-day leadership, control, and coordination of all redesign implementation activities is vested in the director of the DPRT. The director, reporting to the Commissioner and principal deputy commissioner, is expected to establish implementation priorities, develop specific timelines, and provide oversight to ensure that implementation decisions are consistent with the vision for the redesign process. In addition, task teams were established to address specific implementation issues within each of the areas. These teams were directed to address a broad range of planning issues involving strategic, tactical, and operational matters. In early 1995, 12 task teams met to formulate and recommend specific actions that should be undertaken. For each task team, the overall purpose and related activities are summarized in table 2.1. In deciding to redesign the disability claims process, SSA tackled the entire process rather than using a building block approach, improving aspects of the process a little at a time. SSA’s ambitious approach led it, in November 1994, to identify 83 initiatives (later reduced to 80) associated with 23 process features. SSA chose to prioritize these initiatives by dividing them into three time frames: near-term (fiscal year 1995 to 1996), mid-term (fiscal year 1997 to 1998), and long-term (fiscal year 1999 to 2000). Near-term implementation initiatives are those (1) scheduled to be fully implemented nationwide by the end of fiscal year 1996 or (2) for which the research and development or site testing can be initiated by the end of fiscal year 1996. Mid-term initiatives are those that are scheduled to be developed and tested in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 and implemented nationwide by fiscal year 1998. Finally, long-term initiatives are those requiring extensive research and development that cannot be tested fully before fiscal year 1999 or cannot be fully implemented nationwide before fiscal year 2001. SSA’s near-term initiatives, to be completed or under way by September 30, 1996, include a rollout of 40 (later reduced to 38), almost one-half, of the 80. The 38 initiatives were designed to set the pace for fully implementing the redesign. Completing the initiatives will require a significant investment in time and resources. Thousands of federal, state, and contractor employees will be needed throughout the country for (1) activities such as designing, developing, testing, and evaluating processes and (2) developing and delivering training programs. Each initiative contains its own set of unique and complex circumstances. The six process features and corresponding near-term initiatives are summarizied in table 2.2. See appendix I for DPRT’s complete timetable for redesign. The time frames established in SSA’s November 1994 implementation plan, “Disability Process Redesign: Next Steps in Implementation,” sets forth an outside time frame, September 30, 1996, for (1) completing the near-term initiatives or (2) initiating research and development or site testing. Nevertheless, the redesign implementation team was to focus on completing the tasks as early in the time frame as possible. However, SSA has not met its near-term goal. While SSA has completed six tasks (a subcomponent within an initiative) as of July 1996, it has not fully completed or implemented any near-term initiative and is running behind in meeting its testing milestones. As to tasks completed between November 1994 and July 1996, SSA has (1) disseminated a 1-page disability information fact sheet, (2) completed program operation instructions for the Early Decision List and sequential interviewing, (3) revised the disability form 3368 to collect medical source information, (4) finalized the DCM Workgroup report, (5) published regulations to test the DCM, the predecision interview, and the elimination of the reconsideration step in the current process, as well as began training all decisionmakers on existing policy for treating physician opinion, pain and other symptoms, and residual functional capacity, and (6) developed a research plan for developing a new disability determination methodology. Furthermore, of the 19 initiatives requiring testing, which were to be completed or initiated by September 30, 1996, only 5 had testing ongoing as of July 1996; 3 of them—the AO position, use of mail-in applications, and the single-decisionmaker—were being fully tested; the other 2 had limited testing under way. Testing on the remaining 14 has not started. The status of SSA efforts to complete the 38 near-term initiatives is shown in table 2.3. SSA began its redesign by identifying problems with the current claims process and focusing on initiatives it felt needed to be undertaken immediately. In its 2-year plan for near-term improvements, SSA has moved forward with 38 initiatives rather than keeping its efforts focused on a few initiatives at one time and striving for rapid process change—a best practice associated with successful reengineering. Many of the initiatives SSA has undertaken are complex, requiring more time to complete than it planned. Thus, the risk of leadership turnover, before the overall project is complete, is increased. According to reengineering experts, continuity of senior executive leadership is much more likely for initiatives of shorter duration. Further complicating SSA’s redesign activities is the difficulty it has experienced in trying to maintain the support of all its stakeholders. SSA identified more than 140 stakeholders, many with conflicting concerns. While SSA has been working to secure their support for the redesigned process, a number of stakeholders do not support SSA’s approach. Moreover, because none of the initiatives have been successfully implemented, there are no concrete and measurable results that enable SSA to demonstrate the merits of its approach to encourage stakeholder support. In deciding to tackle 38 initiatives in the first 2 years of the redesign, SSA did not follow a best practice—organizations that successfully manage redesign usually focus on a small number of initiatives at one time. Nevertheless, SSA decided to take on a large number of initiatives concurrently. Some of the more important initiatives—such as technology enhancements, the DCM position, and process unification—are large and complex. They will require many years to complete and the commitment and support of numerous stakeholders. A major part of SSA’s redesign is implementing technological enhancements to improve the disability claims process. The redesigned process would replace a slow, labor-intensive, and paper-reliant process with an automated system from first contact to final decision. Throughout all stages of the process, all staff will use essentially the same software to assign claims, schedule appointments, gather and store information, develop medical and nonmedical evidence, facilitate decision-making, provide case control, keep fiscal and accounting information, and manage the information. SSA will also need to acquire over 50,000 intelligent workstations (personal computers). This extensive software and hardware acquisition will be installed on a local area network (LAN), connecting more than 1,350 SSA and state offices throughout the United States. SSA estimates that it will be 1998 before the hardware is installed in all field locations. SSA’s software development activities demonstrate the long-term and complex nature of this initiative. Developing software designed to allow SSA to move from its current manual process to an automated process is critical to success. However, the scheduled implementation of this new software has been delayed by about 28 months because of problems identified during testing. Software development is further constrained by the lack of firm requirements for the new disability determination process. For example, SSA cannot effectively develop software to obtain medical evidence of records until the DPRT decides how it wants to standardize information, requested from medical sources, to substantiate disability claims. SSA chose to create the DCM position to consolidate different elements of the claims determination process. However, recognizing the scope of the changes involved, SSA determined it needed to introduce the position gradually; the DCM position would not become fully operational until fiscal year 2000. The DCM is a key dimension of SSA’s redesign. SSA plans to (1) establish over 11,000 DCM positions in about 1,350 federal and state locations and (2) recruit DCMs from its current workforce of about 16,000 federal claims representatives and about 6,000 state disability examiners. As mentioned earlier, the DCM would be responsible for making all decisions about a disability claim. This is a major deviation from current practice: an SSA claims representative processes the initial claim; then a state disability examiner and a medical consultant make the medical determination. The DCM would conduct personal interviews, develop records for evidence, and determine medical and nonmedical eligibility. Specifically, the DCM would gather and store claim information, develop both medical and nonmedical evidence, share necessary facts in a claim with medical consultants and specialists in nonmedical or technical issues, analyze evidence, and make the decision whether to allow or deny the claim. If the initial evidence does not support an allowance before denying the claim, the DCM will issue a predecision notice advising the claimant of what evidence has been considered and provide the claimant with the opportunity to submit additional evidence. Although DCMs could still call on medical and technical support personnel for assistance, a DCM alone would make the final decision on both medical and nonmedical aspects of a disability claim. To accomplish all these tasks, the DCM would need a number of crucial initiatives, such as technology enhancements, process unification, and a simplified decision methodology. However, SSA acknowledges that these initiatives will not be implemented soon. In addition, SSA faces many other challenges before the DCM can become operational, for example, securing support from state governments, state and federal labor unions, and congressional committees; developing training plans; conducting tests at pilot sites; bargaining with state unions; posting vacancy announcements for positions; and selecting and training employees. In October 1996, SSA stated that the decision to implement the DCM will not be made until valid and reliable testing demonstrates that this position is viable. The scope of process unification has increased significantly since the implementation plan for the redesign was released in November 1994. At that time, the DPRT was primarily interested in developing a single policy manual—known as the “one book”—of all substantive policies for determining disability. Since then, SSA has expanded the scope of its initiative to put together the one book. Under process unification, SSA hopes to achieve similar results on similar cases at all stages of the disability claims process, with consistent application of laws, regulations, and rulings. SSA’s expanded initiative includes (1) conducting the same training for 14,000 decisionmakers, including doctors and reviewers, (2) developing a consistent quality review process that balances review of allowances and denials and applies the same standards at all stages of the process, and (3) using more consistent medical input throughout the disability determination process. Consequently, process unification will not be completed by September 30, 1996, as initially envisioned, but will be phased in through a series of incremental changes that could take through January 1998 or longer to complete. When undertaking reengineering initiatives, organizations are often working toward accomplishing a vision for the future; they may invest several or more years to fully complete all of the initiatives. This is also true for SSA’s redesign initiatives. As mentioned earlier, experts suggest, however, that organizations that have successfully reengineered their work processes meet their long-term vision by implementing discrete projects of relatively short duration. Experts therefore advocate planning initiatives that can be implemented within 12 months. Experts also state that achieving quick progress is the key to maintaining stakeholder support for long-term changes. Furthermore, redesign in government agencies can be affected by constantly changing political environments that often restrict the time available for career officials to achieve program goals. Consequently, redesign initiatives with relatively short time frames allow organizations to avoid major disruption because of leadership changes. Some of SSA’s initiatives, however, are beginning to expand in scope and become lengthy endeavors. Reengineering experts also caution that lengthy initiatives can affect the continuity and availability of the agency’s senior executives. Such senior executives are a necessary prerequisite for successful reengineering. These executives are the cornerstone of any redesign effort and actively demonstrate the agency’s commitment to initiate and sustain the change. Although SSA recognizes the importance of management stability and continuity to the redesign process, it has experienced turnover in three senior executive positions since implementation began. We did not develop evidence that such turnover has had a negative impact on SSA’s redesign. But continued turnover could result in possible loss of momentum or change of scope or direction. Redesign initiatives that take many years to complete face increased risk—the longer the project runs, the greater the chance that turnover of leadership will occur. Maintaining stakeholder support is critical to reengineering. Because stakeholders can jeopardize the chances for successful reengineering if they are not committed to it, managers of redesign must seek out and secure support from all stakeholders. Stakeholders have considerable knowledge of the business and organizational environment and can help rally support from other stakeholders. SSA identified and tried to involve stakeholders in the redesign, but has encountered problems obtaining and maintaining their support. In September 1993, SSA established an executive workgroup to identify the stakeholders that should be involved in the development and implementation of redesign. More than 140 stakeholders were identified from congressional, federal, state, public, and private groups. In its November 1994 redesign implementation plan, SSA called on its federal and state workforce to make the vision a reality. Since then, some actions taken by SSA have raised major concerns for some stakeholders—especially salary issues. According to the president of the American Federation of Government Employees, Local 1923, the union would have opposed the DCM position if SSA attempted to implement it as a grade 11. Under a memorandum of understanding between the union and SSA, those assigned to DCM positions will receive temporary promotions to grade 12, one grade higher than the journeyman level for the claims representative position. However, this action raised concerns for the state DDS directors and their workforce, many of whom believe that the agreement with the union will (1) exacerbate the existing salary gap between state and federal employees and (2) give federal employees a workload that is currently states’ responsibility. Another stakeholder disagreement arose following deliberations of a workgroup SSA created to determine how to accelerate testing of the DCM position. This workgroup was comprised of SSA and DDS management, claims representatives and disability examiners, and federal and state union representatives. The workgroup’s final report endorsed SSA’s proposal to test 1,500 DCMs over a 3-year period. Even though DDS representatives were workgroup participants, they did not support SSA’s proposal to test such a large number of positions. At the conclusion of the DCM workgroup’s activities, the NCDDD presented a position paper to the DPRT director. The paper stated that the directors would only agree to a pilot test involving 60 state and 60 federal DCMs. On September 11, 1996, the director, DPRT, stated that SSA plans to begin training DCMs in January 1997. Federal employees will receive about 30 weeks of training and state employees about 6. After formal training is complete, a period of coaching and mentoring will take place. The total time envisioned for the formal training and the coaching period is about 18 months. However, as further evidence that stakeholder support is eroding, the director also said that he was not sure there will be a DCM test. He explained that (1) of the 16 states that previously agreed to take part in the test, 3 have decided not to participate and (2) several of the remaining 13 states are now reconsidering their decision to participate. Further, SSA has not obtained strong support from a major stakeholder—the NCDDD. The directors manage over 14,000 state employees nationwide, of whom about 6,000 are disability examiners. According to two recent NCDDD surveys, the DDS directors indicated that many states were not strongly supportive of a number of redesign initiatives. According to the first survey, conducted in September 1995, only 3 of the 42 respondents, or about 7 percent, strongly supported redesign. In addition, 17 states, or about 40 percent, either moderately or strongly did not support SSA’s efforts to redesign the disability process. According to the second survey, conducted in January 1996, the DDS directors’ opinions about redesign had worsened, in part due to DCM testing. In response to the question about how the states viewed the overall redesign, 28 of 51 respondents, or about 55 percent, either moderately or strongly did not support redesign. Further, according to the survey, only 1 of 50 DDS directors thought the DCM position could be implemented successfully without all the enablers in place. In addition, 24 of these directors thought the DCM position could never be successfully implemented. Given the high cost and long processing time of SSA’s current process, the agency’s redesign, which undertakes a large number of initiatives at one time, is proving to be overly ambitious. Some initiatives are also getting more complex as SSA expands the work required to complete them. This approach is likely to limit the chances for success and has already led to delays in implementation: testing milestones have slipped and stakeholder support for the redesign has diminished. As of July 1996, activity is under way for most of SSA’s near-term initiatives; however, none is complete and many are behind schedule. Only about one-fourth of the near-term initiatives that contain testing requirements have been started. Consequently, SSA has not made the progress it intended in order to know whether specific initiatives will achieve the desired results. Further, many of the initiatives are complex and have expanded in scope, thus increasing the time frames to complete them. A disadvantage to extending the time frames and delaying implementation is that they increase the likelihood that SSA will experience senior executive changes during the course of the redesign. Moreover, this delay also means that no concrete and measurable results are available to maintain stakeholder support. While any one of the problems discussed in this report could possibly be managed and handled successfully, SSA currently faces a multitude of problems that raises questions about the likelihood redesign will succeed. To increase the likelihood that its reengineering project will succeed, given the major delays that SSA has experienced and the risk of further decline in stakeholder support, we recommend that the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration concentrate on accomplishing rapid results through initiatives of smaller, more manageable scope. This effort should include selecting those initiatives most crucial to producing significant, measurable reductions in claims-processing time and administrative costs—including those initiatives intended to achieve process unification, establishment of new decision-making positions, and enhancement of information systems support—and combining those initiatives into an integrated process, testing that process at a few sites, and evaluating the results—before proceeding with full-scale implementation. The valuable experience gained in these initial efforts can then be used both to improve the redesign and to build support among stakeholders and potential program beneficiaries. In addition, other initiatives could be undertaken at a later date, when progress is ensured for the initiatives described above and resources become available. In its comments, SSA generally agreed with the thrust of our report and its recommendation. SSA stated it is directing a larger portion of its redesign resources to crucial initiatives. Further, SSA plans to evaluate several key redesign features in early 1997—the single decisionmaker and predecision interview process, elimination of the reconsideration stage, and the proposed adjudication officer (AO) position—in an integrated test. This approach does not, however, include integrated testing of all the initiatives we and SSA now consider crucial. Among the initiatives excluded from this testing approach are process unification, quality assurance, and enhancement of information systems support. We continue to believe that SSA, before proceeding with full-scale implementation, should combine all crucial initiatives into an integrated process, test that process at a few sites, and evaluate test results. The approach we recommend is quite similar to one that was under consideration at SSA in 1995. Under that 1995 approach, sites were to serve as comprehensive test locations, with the principal function of integrating and combining all crucial initiatives, including automation and technology enablers. In its comments, SSA also expressed some reservations about how quickly it could complete redesign. SSA stated that while other organizations could achieve results quickly, such an expectation regarding SSA’s redesign would be unrealistic, given the scope of the initiatives. But during the course of our work, we identified several instances of large, complex government and private organization redesigns in which significant test results were achieved in a relatively short time. Although testing a fully integrated process may require considerable effort, quick completion would both (1) provide valuable information that would assist SSA in selecting a redesign solution and (2) serve as a concrete demonstration of progress. These two factors should be helpful in building support among stakeholders and potential program beneficiaries. See appendix II for the full text of SSA’s comments.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO evaluated the Social Security Administration's (SSA) efforts and progress in redesigning the disability determination claims process to reduce administrative costs and the time a claimant waits for a decision, focusing on: (1) SSA's vision and progress for redesigning the disability claims process; (2) issues related to the scope and complexity of the redesign; and (3) SSA's efforts to maintain stakeholder support. GAO found that: (1) SSA is about one-third the way through the 6 years it estimated for redesigning the process, but has made relatively little progress in meeting its goals; (2) as of July 1996, SSA had not completed any initiative and testing had not begun for 14 of the 19 initiatives that contain testing requirements; (3) there have not been concrete and measurable accomplishments to keep the support of stakeholders; (4) a number of these initiatives have expanded in scope, thus increasing the time frames required to complete them; (5) increasing the time frames has several disadvantages, such as delaying implementation and heightening the risk of disruption from turnover in senior executives; (6) in addition to delays, SSA has also experienced turnover of senior executives since the beginning of the redesign; (7) although it is difficult to determine if this turnover has had a negative impact on the redesign thus far, continued turnover could result in possible loss of momentum or change of direction; (8) further complicating SSA's redesign efforts are difficulties in maintaining much needed stakeholder support; (9) some federal and state employees, as well as the unions that represent them, are concerned that redesign could mean the loss of jobs; (10) state employees are concerned about SSA's decision to pay federal employees at a higher rate than state employees for the same job; and (11) support from state management officials involved in the disability claims process has been declining steadily.

Georgetown University (Wikipedia) Exorcist Writer Gets Response From Holy See on Georgetown Petition The Vatican describes the petition as a “well-founded complaint” and says it will work with the Jesuits to address the issues, stirring hope and skepticism. JOAN FRAWLEY DESMOND WASHINGTON — Last September, William Peter Blatty, the author of The Exorcist and an alumnus of Georgetown University, sent a canonical petition to the Vatican, requesting that the Church “require that Georgetown implement Ex Corde Ecclesiae, a papal constitution governing Catholic colleges.” If that effort proved fruitless, his petition called for “the removal or suspension of top-ranked Georgetown’s right to call itself Catholic and Jesuit in any of its representations.” Many months later, Blatty and the 2,000 other men and women who signed his petition have received a response from the Congregation for Catholic Education, sparking cautious hope that the Holy See will press the Society of Jesus to address festering problems on the Washington campus. In an April 4 letter, Archbishop Angelo Vincenzo Zani, the secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education, stated that technical impediments prevented the department from granting the petitioners’ request for “hierarchic recourse.” But Archbishop Zani offered hope that the Vatican would pursue the matter further. “Your communications to this dicastery in the matter of Georgetown University … constitute a well-founded complaint,” wrote Archbishop Zani. “Our congregation is taking the issue seriously and is cooperating with the Society of Jesus in this regard.” Archbishop Zani’s response fell short of Blatty’s request for a formal assessment of Georgetown’s adherence to Ex Corde Ecclesiae (Catholic Universities), St. John Paul II’s apostolic constitution that directs Catholic universities to adhere to Catholic teaching and advance the mission of the Church in their institutional culture, faculty hiring and retention, curricula and student affairs. However, Blatty remains optimistic that his ultimate goal — the revival and strengthening of Georgetown’s Catholic identity — will gain traction as the Holy See’s talks with the Society of Jesus move forward. "I am deeply gratified that the prayers of my 2,000 fellow petitioners have been answered,” Blatty told the Register. “There is still more work to be done, and I promise them that we will persevere.” Blatty contacted the Register to report this new development, and his legal adviser, Manuel Miranda, pointed to Archbishop Zani’s letter as a positive first step in what would likely be a lengthy process. “We looked to the law of the Church, and we applied the facts. The Vatican has accepted our complaint as well-founded.” Vatican Action at Peru University While the outcome is far from certain, Blatty and Miranda have already gained hope from the Holy See’s stepped up efforts to resolve a separate dispute at a university in Peru, formally known as the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru. In August 2012, Pope Benedict XVI stripped the university of the titles “Catholic” and “pontifical.” However, the university has resisted the Vatican’s directives. On April 30, it was disclosed that Pope Francis had formed a “commission of cardinals, whose mission will be to find a definitive consensual solution” within the framework of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, according to the administrator of the nunciature in Lima, Father Jose Antonio Teixeira Alves. A critical element of the Vatican’s efforts to address the Peruvian university’s problems, said Miranda, is the fact that Ex Corde Ecclesiae is presented as normative. This finding could strengthen Blatty’s complaint, as his petition argues that Georgetown has failed to incorporate John Paul II’s apostolic constitution in its bylaws and faculty-recruitment policy. “The facts are undeniable. ... Like the University of Peru, Georgetown is ... persisting in numerous institutional practices inconsistent with a university that could claim communion with the Church,” said Miranda, noting that such practices are documented in materials that accompanied the petition. According to Father Luis Gaspar, the canon lawyer representing the Church in the dispute with the university, Miranda’s view of the situation in Peru has merit. The priest, who is also president of the Ecclesiastic Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Lima, told the Register, “The decision taken by the Holy See regarding the former Pontifical Catholic University of Peru is a very significant precedent [for] … other Catholic universities around the world. What happens here will in some way set a standard to deal with other rebellious Catholic universities.” ‘Faint Hope’ for Change University of Notre Dame law professor Gerard Bradley, the past president of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, welcomed the fresh news regarding Blatty’s petition but expressed only a “faint hope” of any substantive changes at Georgetown or other self-identified “Catholic” universities with similar problems. “The vast majority of America’s Catholic colleges — which constitute a majority of all the world’s Catholic colleges — have been operating contrary to canon law for decades (and here I am referring mainly to Canons 810 and 812),” Bradley told the Register. Canon 810 states that, when hiring faculty, Catholic university administrators should appoint individuals who are "outstanding in their integrity of doctrine and uprightness of life." Canon 812 states that anyone who teaches theology at a Catholic university must obtain a mandate from the local ordinary. Blatty’s petition notes that Georgetown does not require its theology professors to obtain a mandate and that the ranks of self-identified “Catholics” represent 22% or less of the total number of faculty on the Washington campus, based on a survey that was conducted a decade ago. The Register contacted Georgetown for information on a number of issues related to the petition, including updated figures on the percentage of Catholic faculty, but did not receive a response. The Register also contacted the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus to request a comment about the Georgetown petition, and Sheila Welton, a communications associate, said that Georgetown should comment. “Typically, the province does defer to the local ministry to provide the update,” Welton told the Register. Last October, when the Register reported on Blatty’s decision to send the petition to Rome, Rachel Pugh, a spokeswoman for Georgetown University, rejected assertions that the university had moved away from its Catholic roots. “Catholic and Jesuit identity on campus has never been stronger. Academically, we remain committed to the Catholic intellectual tradition,” Pugh told the Register. “Georgetown supports the largest campus ministry in the country,” she added, noting that the university requires undergraduates to “take two semesters of theology and two semesters of philosophy before graduation.” But, over the past decade, the university has drawn sharp criticism for a number of high-profile actions that raise questions about its adherence to Catholic teaching. In recent years, it has opened a LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning) resource center and hosts an annual “Lavender” graduation ceremony. In 2012, Kathleen Sebelius, then the Obama administration’s secretary for Health and Human Services, was invited to speak at a graduation event after she approved the contraception mandate, condemned by the U.S. bishops as an unprecedented threat to religious freedom. Strengthening Catholic Identity? Yet disgruntled alumni also have noticed a few promising developments on campus. Last fall, Georgetown announced a new Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life, which has organized events that brought together Church leaders, scholars and journalists to address a range of issues. “Georgetown appears to have added some high-visibility ‘Catholic identity’ features lately, which may or may not signify real and lasting change for the better,” said Russell Shaw, a Georgetown alumnus and the author of American Church: The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America. “Meanwhile, I don’t think there’s much to be gained by a legal, canonical approach, nor do I imagine the Society of Jesus can do much, given the university’s quasi-autonomous status. Positive encouragement seems the best way to go in the circumstances.” Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington did not respond to a request for comment from the Register, but his public statements and involvement in events at the university suggest that he shares Shaw’s judgment about the most realistic path for engaging Georgetown. Cardinal Wuerl frequently appears at conferences and panel discussions at Georgetown, and, on May 5, the archdiocese and the university co-sponsored a concert marking the canonization of Sts. John XXIII and John Paul II. However, in 2012, when Georgetown announced that Sebelius would speak at a graduation event, the archdiocese released several sharply worded statements. And Cardinal Wuerl’s office forwarded Blatty’s petition to Rome, according to Miranda. William Dempsey, who leads the Sycamore Trust, a group of Notre Dame alumni working to strengthen the Catholic identity of their alma mater, told the Register that the “bishops face formidable difficulties in dealing with Catholic universities.” “The Catholic identity of the great majority has been badly compromised … and the fateful surrender of control by dioceses and orders has disabled the bishops,” said Dempsey. “They are reduced to persuasion or pressure or a combination of the two.” ‘Last Line of Defense’ for Catholicity Blatty’s canon-law petition and additional legal documents comprise more than 200 pages, including witness statements and an institutional audit of Georgetown commissioned by the petitioners. The petition forcefully argues that the rapid advance of moral relativism on U.S. campuses has made the reform of Catholic higher education based on Ex Corde Ecclesiae all the more urgent. While critics of Ex Corde Ecclesiae often oppose it as a threat to academic freedom, the petition argues that the papal document will prove to be “a last line of defense of academic freedom against the dictatorship of relativism and other new orthodoxies invading America’s colleges and universities” and that the U.S. bishops must do more to enforce the apostolic constitution. The petition includes testimony from Chiara Cardone, an alumnus who graduated in 2010, who states that her “Catholic manner of worship was always accepted, but my Catholic lifestyle and convictions were sometimes attacked by student organizations and staff members, themselves underpinned by tacit and even explicit university endorsement.” Blatty and Miranda’s ambitious effort underscores the mounting frustration and sadness of Georgetown alumni like Cardone, who fear the university’s culture will soon be indistinguishable from many elite secular universities — even as Pope Francis calls for the deep reform of Church-affiliated institutions to better advance the New Evangelization. “In all his examples and in his final salvific sacrifice,” states the petition, “Jesus our Lord did not teach us to say: ‘It is too late.’” Joan Frawley Desmond is the Register’s senior editor. Alejandro Bermudez, the Register's Latin-American correspondent, contributed to this report. ||||| William Peter Blatty, author and screenwriter of “The Exorcist,” stands on the ”Exorcist steps” in Georgetown. Blatty based his book on a real-life exorcism conducted on a Washington area boy. William Peter Blatty, author and screenwriter of “The Exorcist,” stands on the ”Exorcist steps” in Georgetown. Blatty based his book on a real-life exorcism conducted on a Washington area boy. Jim Lo Scalzo/European Pressphoto Agency Forty years after the movie’s debut, William Peter Blatty’s creation still captivates audiences, in part because it was based on a real-life story of a Prince George’s County boy. Forty years after the movie’s debut, William Peter Blatty’s creation still captivates audiences, in part because it was based on a real-life story of a Prince George’s County boy. Forty years after the movie’s debut, William Peter Blatty’s creation still captivates audiences, in part because it was based on a real-life story of a Prince George’s County boy. The author of the thriller “The Exorcist” has new hope he has put the fear of God in Georgetown University. William Peter Blatty, a Georgetown graduate, submitted to the Vatican last fall a petition with some 2,000 signatures calling for the school to be stripped of the labels Catholic and Jesuit. The petition said neither the faculty nor the student body was sufficiently Catholic, and Blatty complained about “scandals,” including that the school had invited then-Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a supporter of abortion rights, to speak. What the Vatican plans to do was not immediately clear from its response, but it appeared somewhat encouraging to Blatty. In a letter dated April 4, Archbishop Angelo Zani, secretary of the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education, said the case could not be handled in the way Blatty had asked, because Blatty himself had not “suffered an objective change” at the hands of Georgetown. However, the letter, first reported by the National Catholic Register, also said this: “Your communications to this Dicastery in the matter of Georgetown University . . . constitute a well-founded complaint,” Zani wrote. “Our Congregation is taking the issue seriously, and is cooperating with the Society of Jesus in this regard.” A request for clarification from a Vatican spokesman was directed toward the Washington Archdiocese, which declined to comment. Georgetown spokeswoman Stacy Kerr said the school has never received anything from the Vatican or the archdiocese, to which Blatty had also complained. Georgetown officials have disputed Blatty’s assertion that the university has lost its Catholic identity. Chieko Noguchi, an archdiocese spokeswoman, declined to comment, saying Archbishop Donald Wuerl “has not been involved in the preparation of the petition nor the process undertaken to challenge the Catholic identity of Georgetown University.” The effort was brought by Blatty and a group connected with the Cardinal Newman Society. The campaign represents the frustration of some conservative Catholics who want to see Catholic institutions more orthodox and uniform. They rally around Ex Corde Ecclesiae, a 1990 document by Pope John Paul II that gives instructions to colleges and universities about how to keep their Catholic identities. Catholics have debated since 1990 what it means to satisfy Ex Corde and its guidelines on, for example, what percent of faculty members should be Catholic and what kind of credentials theologians at Catholic schools should have. “Pope John Paul II was trying to say, ‘Here are common characteristics of what would be good to have at a Catholic college or university.’ Some people take that document and turn it into a checklist,” said Michael Galligan-Stierle, president of the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities. “It falls to the bishop at the end of the day to read that document” and consider all the specifics of a school, such as its setting and its work, he said. Asked how a Catholic school could satisfy Ex Corde if it hosts people and conversations supporting abortion rights, for example, Galligan-Stierle said: “It’s very important our colleges prepare students to engage culture in a substantive way. . . . That’s different than advancing a certain method.” In addition to writing the novel “The Exorcist,” Blatty produced and wrote the screenplay for the movie, which is one of the top-grossing R-rated films in history. It is about the demonic possession of a girl, a troubled Georgetown University priest who is assigned to her case and the Prospect Street NW home where the nightmare unfolds.

William Peter Blatty, author of The Exorcist and a Georgetown graduate, doesn't think his alma mater is Catholic enough—and the Vatican just may be on his side. Blatty submitted a petition to the Vatican last fall asking that the school be stripped of its "Catholic" and "Jesuit" labels, because not enough of the student body or the faculty is Catholic. The petition, bearing 2,000 signatures, also cited "scandals" at the school, like the fact that pro-choice Kathleen Sebelius being invited to speak there. The Vatican responded to the petition last month, the National Catholic Register reports. "Your communications to this Dicastery in the matter of Georgetown University ... constitute a well-founded complaint," Archbishop Angelo Zani wrote in the letter dated April 4. "Our Congregation is taking the issue seriously, and is cooperating with the Society of Jesus in this regard." However, it's not clear what the Vatican plans to do, and a request for clarification from the Washington Post went without comment. What Blatty really wants is for Georgetown to revive its Catholic identity, he tells the Register, and in that regard he remains optimistic and promises to "persevere."

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in an evening address that Canada would not be intimidated by Wednesday's "brutal and violent attack" in Ottawa, in which an armed attacker shot and fatally wounded a Canadian Forces member at the National War Memorial before being shot dead in Parliament's Centre Block. The slain soldier is Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, 24,a reservist from Hamilton. Moments after Cirillo was shot at his post by the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, MPs and other witnesses reported 30 to 50 shots fired inside the main Parliament building. It was confirmed later that the gunman was shot dead inside the building, felled by the House of Commons sergeant-at-arms and RCMP, according to MPs' accounts. CBC News has confirmed the dead shooting suspectis Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a Canadian born in 1982. CBC News has learned that Zehaf-Bibeau has a criminal record in Quebec dating back 10 years on some drug-related charges. Court documents from that time show that he lived at an address in Montreal. Previous Next He also has a criminal record in B.C., where he was convicted in 2012 of uttering threats and served one day in jail. In his brief address, Harper offered condolences for Cirillo's family, and for the family of Patrice Vincent, another soldier who was killed in an attack earlier this week. "For the second time this week, there has been a brutal and violent attack on our soil," he said. "But let there be no misunderstanding — we will not be intimidated, Canada will never be intimidated." NDP Leader Tom Mulcair andLiberal Leader Justin Trudeau delivered their own statements, condemning the attacks and pledging support for the government. Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, the suspected gunman in Wednesday's Ottawa shootings, had a criminal record in B.C. and Quebec. (Twitter) Harper, who was on Parliament Hill at the time of the shooting and was safely whisked away, met with members of his cabinet before making his address. He then met with the Conservative caucus, who had been in lockdown on the Hill until after 8 p.m. ET. Harper's spokesman Carl Vallée said on Twitter that Harper also spoke briefly to U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday afternoon. Harper also spoke with Mulcair and Trudeau, the Prime Minister's Office said. Hundreds of people, including children at a daycare, waited hours to be evacuated from Parliament Hill as the area remained under lockdown. Late Wednesday OC Transpo buses began taking people away from the Hill as the lockdown eased. Caught 'by surprise' In an afternoon news conference, police would not say whether they still suspect another shooter is involved, saying only "there is no one in custody at this time." "This is a dynamic and unfolding situation," said RCMP Assistant Commissioner Gilles Michaud, commanding officer of the national division. Michaud also suggested that police had no forewarning of the attack, saying "it caught us by surprise." He added that it's too soon to say whether the dead gunman was already known to security officials. Michaud added that police have maintained a "medium" level of security of Parliament for the past number of years, and that had not changed in recent days. Ottawa police Chief Charles Bordeleau asked witnesses to the incidents to come forward. Ottawa Civic Hospital confirmed four people were taken to hospital: the soldier who died, and three who were released after treatment for minor injuries. One of those injured was a parliamentary security guard shot in the foot, according to CBC's Judy Trinh. Despite earlier reports of shots fired near the Rideau Centre shopping mall east of Parliament Hill, police later said "no incident occurred near the Rideau Centre." Chaos and bravery inside Parliament Alain Merisier, who works at the cafeteria in one of the Parliament Buildings, told CBC News that he saw a man in a car at the Centre Block with a long gun. Cpl. Nathan Cirillo guarding the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at the National Memorial in Ottawa in a photo posted on Twitter Wednesday. Cirillo was shot and killed by a man who later attacked the Parliament buildings. (Twitter) CBC video and cellphone video shot by a Globe and Mail reporter showed a chaotic scene in the elegant hallway leading from the front doors of Parliament's Centre Block to the Library of Parliament during the attack. A sustained volley of shots was fired. Startled security personnel and political staff scrambled to take cover in the limestone alcoves as bullets flew. In the minutes after the shooting, MPs and parliamentary staff began tweeting and telling reporters that it was Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers who shot the gunman. The tweets included: NDP MP Craig Scott: "MPs and Hill staff owe their safety, even lives, to Sergeant at Arms Kevin Vickers who shot attacker just outside the MPs' caucus rooms." Veterans Affairs Minister Julian Fantino, former head of the Ontario Provincial Police and ex-Toronto chief of police: "I am safe & profoundly grateful to Sgt at Arms Kevin Vickers & our security forces for selfless act of keeping us safe." Justice Minister Peter MacKay: "Thank God for Sgt at Arms Kevin Vickers & our Cdn security forces. True heroes." Eyewitness accounts Earlier, police sealed off the area around the National War Memorial while the injured soldier was given emergency medical aid. "We were waiting there for a city tour and suddenly I heard four shots," said Jan Lugtenborg, a tourist visiting downtown Ottawa from Holland. The barricaded Conservative Party caucus room is shown shortly after shooting began on Parliament Hill. (MP Nina Grewal/Reuters) "Suddenly I saw a small guy with long black hair … with a long rifle, and he ran away after the shots, across streets in the direction of Parliament Hill," he said. Raivo Nommick, another bystander, said "all of a sudden, I just heard a shot, turned around and there was a guy with a rifle .... and just pow pow. "Then I saw one of the other Armed Forces guys just running. He barrelled over, just ran right over. The other guy just dropped. I looked back and just dived underneath and immediately called 911." First responders arrive after multiple shots were fired at Ottawa's National War Memorial on Wednesday morning. (Laura Payton/CBC) Scott Walsh, who was working on Parliament Hill, said he saw a man running with a double-barrelled shotgun, wearing a scarf and blue jeans. Walsh said the man hopped over the stone fence that surrounds Parliament Hill, forcing someone out of their car at gunpoint. He then drove to the front doors of Parliament and fired at least two shots, Walsh said. Conservative MPs are transported in an Ottawa transit bus from Parliament Hill in Ottawa Wednesday, after a gunman attacked Parliament Hill and was shot dead. (Sean Kilpatrick/Canadian Press) New Democrat MP Hélène Laverdière said she heard 20 to 30 shots inside Parliament, and hit the floor. She and fellow MPs Charlie Angus and Rosane Doré Lefebvre were later led out of the Centre Block to safety. MP Doré Lefebvre worried about getting her daughter from the daycare facility on Parliament Hill. Children from the daycare were not released until about 8 p.m. On mobile? Follow our live blog here ||||| OTTAWA, Ontario (AP) — A gunman shot and wounded a Canadian soldier standing guard at a war memorial in Ottawa on Wednesday, then entered Parliament, where numerous shots rang out, police and witnesses said. A Royal Canadian Mounted Police intervention team walks past a gate on Parliament hill in Ottawa Wednesday Oct. 22, 2014. A soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial has been shot by an unknown... (Associated Press) Paramedics and police pull a victim away from the Canadian War Memorial in Ottawa, Ontario, on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014. A soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial was shot by an unknown gunman... (Associated Press) A Royal Canadian Mounted Police intervention team responds to a reported shooting at Parliament building in Ottawa, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014. A soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial has... (Associated Press) A Royal Canadian Mounted Police intervention team walks past a gate on Parliament hill in Ottawa Wednesday Oct. 22, 2014. A soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial has been shot by an unknown... (Associated Press) Police cordon off a street leading to Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014. A soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial has been shot by an unknown gunman and there have been... (Associated Press) An armed RCMP officer stands guard at 24 Sussex Dr., the official residence of the Prime Minister, on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014. A soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial has been shot by... (Associated Press) Police converge on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday Oct. 22, 2014. A soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial was shot by an unknown gunman and people reported hearing gunfire inside... (Associated Press) Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard makes a statement in regarding the shooting at the Parliament in Ottawa, Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014 at the legislature in Quebec City. A soldier standing guard at the National... (Associated Press) Police cordon off a street leading to Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday Oct. 22, 2014. A soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial has been shot by an unknown gunman and there have been... (Associated Press) Police and paramedics tend to a soldier shot at the National Memorial near Parliament Hill in Ottawa on Wednesday Oct. 22, 2014. The soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial was shot by an... (Associated Press) A heavily armed RCMP officer enters 24 Sussex Dr., the official residence of the Prime Minister, on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014. A soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial has been shot by an... (Associated Press) A heavily armed RCMP officer takes position at the gate of 24 Sussex Dr., the official residence of the Prime Minister, on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2014. A soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial... (Associated Press) People fled Parliament by scrambling down scaffolding erected for renovations, witnesses told the Canadian Press news agency. Others were in lockdown. Ottawa police Constable Marc Soucy said it was unclear whether there was more than one shooter. The attack came two days after a recent convert to Islam killed one Canadian soldier and injured another in a hit-and-run before being shot to death by police. The killer had been on the radar of federal investigators, who feared he had jihadist ambitions and seized his passport when he tried to travel to Turkey. On Wednesday, video taken by a reporter for the Globe and Mail showed police officers walking slowly through Parliament toward the entrance with guns drawn. The sound of a gunshot ran out, followed by the sounds of multiple shots. The top spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Harper was safe and had left Parliament Hill. Soucy said shots were also fired at a shopping mall near Parliament. All three sites — the National War Memorial, Parliament and the mall — are within less than a mile from each other. "Most of downtown Ottawa is in lockdown," Soucy said. Cabinet minister Tony Clement tweeted that at least 30 shots were heard inside Parliament, where Conservative and Liberal MPs were holding their weekly caucus meetings. "I'm safe locked in a office awaiting security," Kyle Seeback, another member of Parliament, tweeted. Royal Canadian Mounted Police warned people in downtown Ottawa to stay away from windows and rooftops. The wounded soldier was taken away in an ambulance. His condition was not immediately known. ___ Associated Press writer Rob Gillies in Toronto contributed to this story. ||||| (CNN) -- First a soldier guarding a hallowed war memorial was gunned down in Canada's capital. Then shots erupted in the halls of the country's Parliament minutes later. The two shootings in Ottawa Wednesday left lawmakers barricaded inside offices and parts of the city on lockdown for hours as police searched for suspects. Ottawa Police lifted the lockdown Wednesday night and said there was no longer a danger to the public. But many questions remain about the shootings: Who was the gunman? Why did he open fire? And was he acting alone? "It appears there was just one shooter, and that shooter is dead," Ottawa Mayor Jim Watson told CNN's Anderson Cooper. "But it has been a traumatic experience, obviously, for not only our city but the country." Investigators haven't provided any possible motives for the shooting. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper didn't provide details about the investigation in a televised address to the nation Wednesday night. "In the days to come, we will learn more about the terrorist and any accomplices he may have had, but this week's events are a grim reminder that Canada is not immune to the types of terrorist attacks we have seen elsewhere in the world," Harper said. "Let there be no misunderstanding: We will not be intimidated. Canada will never be intimidated." It is unclear whether additional suspects were tied to the shootings or whether additional arrests have been made. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police said more information would be provided in a press conference Thursday. As authorities continued to investigate, details began to emerge about the man they suspect was behind the shooting. Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was identified by Canadian officials to their American counterparts as the suspected gunman, multiple U.S. officials told CNN. Bibeau, who was born in 1982, was a convert to Islam and had a history of drug use before he converted, two sources said. His passport had been confiscated by Canadian authorities when they learned he planned to go fight overseas, a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN's Susan Candiotti. The official said it was not clear when that happened. Canadian broadcaster CBC reported that Bibeau had a record of drug arrests going back 10 years. 'Murdered in cold blood' Cpl. Nathan Cirillo was "murdered in cold blood" as he stood guard at Canada's National War Memorial, Harper said, expressing condolences to the slain Canadian soldier's family. The soldier appeared to have been shot in the back, said Peter Henderson, a journalist who was at the memorial at the time of the shooting. Other soldiers who were nearby doing drills at the time ran to help, he said. Three people brought to The Ottawa Hospital after the shootings have been released, hospital spokeswoman Hazel Harding told CNN. Earlier, they were described as being in stable condition. Shortly after the shooting at the memorial, a gunman entered the nearby building on Parliament Hill, officials said. "I heard rapid fire -- gunshots going very loud -- and I figure maybe 20-plus shots within 10 seconds," Canadian Deputy House Leader Kevin Lamoureux told CNN. He was one level below the gunshots. Gunfire first erupted in the building's foyer. Then a second round of shooting happened about a minute later in a hallway or near the entrance to the Parliament's library, Wingrove told CNN. Several officers had weapons drawn, he said, and most of the dozens of shots that he heard appeared to have been fired by officers at the gunman. When the shooting ended, a person was lying motionless on the ground near the library entrance, Wingrove said. Parliament member James Lunney tweeted: #HOC in Lockdown, lone gunman shot security guard, shot his way down Hall of Honor....we are all safe. Gunman dead! Thnk God & our scrty!" In Twitter posts, several Canadian lawmakers hailed a top security official as a hero, crediting him with shooting the gunman inside Parliament. "MPs and Hill staff owe their safety, even lives, to Sergeant at Arms Kevin Vickers who shot attacker just outside the MPs' caucus rooms," Craig Scott, a member of Parliament, wrote. Another soldier killed Monday A U.S. law enforcement official told CNN that a connection to terrorism hasn't been ruled out. On Monday, a man who Canadian authorities said was "radicalized" killed a Canadian soldier with his car. The man was then shot and killed. Police: Man who ran down and killed soldier was 'radicalized' There was no immediate indication that the Monday and Wednesday incidents were related. In response to the shootings, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, has increased its alert posture, CNN has learned. That means that it has increased the number of planes on a higher alert status ready to respond if needed. NORAD and Canadian authorities are in contact, an official told CNN. Prime Minister secure during shooting MP Tony Clement tweeted that he heard "at least 30 shots" and apparently was able to take cover with colleagues. He also tweeted that Prime Minister Harper was secure. Harper was safely evacuated from the building, tweeted his press secretary, Carl Vallee. Hours after the Parliament attack, Harper spoke by phone with U.S. President Barack Obama. "Obviously, we're all shaken by it," Obama later told reporters, "but we're going to do everything we can to make sure we're standing side by side with Canada during this difficult time." Watson said that Wednesday was "a sad and tragic day for our city and our country." "There's no pain greater than losing a loved one -- to have it happen in such circumstances as this morning is beyond expression, and underlined by a sad anger within my heart," he said. Canada raised its terror threat level The violence at Parliament comes just days after Canada raised its terror alert Friday. The suspect in Monday's vehicle attack, Martin Rouleau Couture, reportedly converted to Islam about a year ago. Police arrested him last July and confiscated his passport, but lacked enough evidence to keep him in custody, said Martine Fontaine of the RCMP. "When he was arrested, he was about to go to Turkey," Fontaine said. "We stopped him as he was about to leave Canada for terrorist actions. He was questioned when he was arrested. We have not been able to determine any real threat at this time." CNN's John Newsome, Pamela Brown, Jason Hanna, Dorrine Mendoza, Dana Ford, Elise Labott, Jim Sciutto, Pam Brown, Deb Feyerick and Susan Candiotti contributed to this report. ||||| Here are Wednesday morning's incidents in Ottawa as we know them so far: 1) WAR MEMORIAL: The CBC reports that a Canadian soldier was shot and injured while standing guard at a war memorial near Parliament in Ottawa on Wednesday morning. A witnesses told CNN that two soldiers were standing guard when a gunman shot one of them. This was shortly before 10 a. m. ET. Information about the injured soldier's condition isn't available. 2) PARLIAMENT: Using an entrance meant for officials, a gunman entered the main Parliament building. Dozens of gunshots -- many fired by security officers -- were fired in and near the foyer, and down a hallway and in front of an entrance to Parliament's library, Ottawa journalist Josh Wingrove told CNN. After the shooting ended, Wingrove said he saw a motionless body near the library's entrance. 3) NEAR THE RIDEAU CENTRE MALL: Ottawa police say there was a "shooting incident" near the Rideau Centre Mall; information about this shooting wasn't immediately available.

Canada's Parliament Hill, National War Memorial, and a nearby mall came under attack this morning, Ottawa police tell the CBC, and one gunman is dead with another still believed to be at large. "Most of downtown Ottawa is in lockdown," says a police rep, as per the AP. A soldier standing guard at the National War Memorial was shot around 9:52am today; he subsequently died at the hospital, two MPs tell CNN. Two other people have been brought to the Ottawa hospital, but their conditions are not believed to be life-threatening. Witnesses then reported seeing a gunman heading toward Parliament Hill, which is a few minutes' walk away; multiple shots were reported inside, and the building was quickly placed under lockdown. The gunman was reportedly found dead inside Parliament. "I heard rapid fire—gunshots going very loud — and I figure maybe 20-plus shots within 10 seconds," Canadian Deputy House Leader Kevin Lamoureux tells CNN. The network reports that the Canadian embassy in Washington has also been placed on lockdown as a precaution. In Ottawa, police warned people to "stay away… due to [an] ongoing police incident," reports ABC News. The top spokesman for Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Harper was safe and has left Parliament Hill, where he has offices. The incident comes two days after two Canadian soldiers were run over—one fatally—in Quebec by a man said to have jihadist sympathies.

Body Scanners Risking Health to Secure Airports The European Union on Monday prohibited the use of X-ray body scanners in European airports, parting ways with the U.S. Transportation Security Administration, which has deployed hundreds of the scanners as a way to screen millions of airline passengers for explosives hidden under clothing. The European Commission, which enforces common policies of the EU's 27 member countries, adopted the rule “in order not to risk jeopardizing citizens’ health and safety.” As a ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation detailed earlier this month, X-ray body scanners use ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to damage DNA and cause cancer. Although the amount of radiation is extremely low, equivalent to the radiation a person would receive in a few minutes of flying, several research studies have concluded that a small number of cancer cases would result from scanning hundreds of millions of passengers a year. European countries will be allowed to use an alternative body scanner, on that relies on radio frequency waves, which have not been linked to cancer. The TSA has also deployed hundreds of those machines – known as millimeter-wave scanners – in U.S. airports. But unlike Europe, it has decided to deploy both types of scanners. The TSA would not comment specifically on the EU’s decision. But in a statement, TSA spokesman Mike McCarthy said, “As one of our many layers of security, TSA deploys the most advanced technology available to provide the best opportunity to detect dangerous items, such as explosives. “We rigorously test our technology to ensure it meets our high detection and safety standards before it is placed in airports,” he continued. “Since January 2010, advanced imaging technology has detected more than 300 dangerous or illegal items on passengers in U.S. airports nationwide.” Body scanners have been controversial in the United States since they were first deployed in prisons in the late 1990s and then in airports for tests after 9/11. Most of the controversy has focused on privacy because the machines can produce graphic images. But the manufacturers have since installed privacy filters. As the TSA began deploying hundreds of body scanners after the failed underwear bombing on Christmas Day 2009, several scientists began to raise concerns about the health risks of the X-ray scanner, noting that even low levels of radiation would increase the risk of cancer. As part of our investigation, ProPublica surveyed foreign countries’ security policies and found that only a few nations used the X-ray scanner. The United Kingdom uses them but only for secondary screening, such as when a passenger triggers the metal detector or raises suspicion. Under the new European Commission policy, the U.K. will be allowed to complete a trial of the X-ray scanners but not to deploy them on a permanent basis when the trial ends, said Helen Kearns, spokeswoman for the European transport commissioner, Siim Kallas. “These new rules ensure that where this technology is used it will be covered by EU-wide standards on detection capability as well as strict safeguards to protect health and fundamental rights,” Kallas said. Five-hundred body scanners, split about evenly between the two technologies, are deployed in U.S. airports. The X-ray scanner, or backscatter, which looks like two large blue boxes, is used at major airports, including Los Angeles International Airport, John F. Kennedy in New York and Chicago's O’Hare. The millimeter-wave scanner, which looks like a round glass booth, is used in San Francisco, Atlanta and Dallas. Within three years, the TSA plans to deploy 1,800 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners, covering nearly every domestic airport security lane. The TSA has not yet released details on the exact breakdown. ||||| Body Scanners Risking Health to Secure Airports Update (11/11): The FDA has responded to this story. Update (11/01): This story has been updated with a comment from The Chertoff Group, from which ProPublica had sought comment before publication. A PBS NewsHour story on X-ray body scanners, reported in conjunction with ProPublica, aired on Dec. 1. On Sept. 23, 1998, a panel of radiation safety experts gathered at a Hilton hotel in Maryland to evaluate a new device that could detect hidden weapons and contraband. The machine, known as the Secure 1000, beamed X-rays at people to see underneath their clothing. One after another, the experts convened by the Food and Drug Administration raised questions about the machine because it violated a longstanding principle in radiation safety — that humans shouldn’t be X-rayed unless there is a medical benefit. “I think this is really a slippery slope,” said Jill Lipoti, who was the director of New Jersey’s radiation protection program. The device was already deployed in prisons; what was next, she and others asked — courthouses, schools, airports? “I am concerned … with expanding this type of product for the traveling public,” said another panelist, Stanley Savic, the vice president for safety at a large electronics company. “I think that would take this thing to an entirely different level of public health risk.” The machine’s inventor, Steven W. Smith, assured the panelists that it was highly unlikely that the device would see widespread use in the near future. At the time, only 20 machines were in operation in the entire country. “The places I think you are not going to see these in the next five years is lower-security facilities, particularly power plants, embassies, courthouses, airports and governments,” Smith said. “I would be extremely surprised in the next five to 10 years if the Secure 1000 is sold to any of these.” Today, the United States has begun marching millions of airline passengers through the X-ray body scanners, parting ways with countries in Europe and elsewhere that have concluded that such widespread use of even low-level radiation poses an unacceptable health risk. The government is rolling out the X-ray scanners despite having a safer alternative that the Transportation Security Administration says is also highly effective. A ProPublica/PBS NewsHour investigation of how this decision was made shows that in post-9/11 America, security issues can trump even long-established medical conventions. The final call to deploy the X-ray machines was made not by the FDA, which regulates drugs and medical devices, but by the TSA, an agency whose primary mission is to prevent terrorist attacks. Research suggests that anywhere from six to 100 U.S. airline passengers each year could get cancer from the machines. Still, the TSA has repeatedly defined the scanners as “safe,” glossing over the accepted scientific view that even low doses of ionizing radiation — the kind beamed directly at the body by the X-ray scanners — increase the risk of cancer. “Even though it’s a very small risk, when you expose that number of people, there’s a potential for some of them to get cancer,” said Kathleen Kaufman, the former radiation management director in Los Angeles County, who brought the prison X-rays to the FDA panel’s attention. About 250 X-ray scanners are currently in U.S. airports, along with 264 body scanners that use a different technology, a form of low-energy radio waves known as millimeter waves. Robin Kane, the TSA’s assistant administrator for security technology, said that no one would get cancer because the amount of radiation the X-ray scanners emit is minute. Having both technologies is important to create competition, he added. “It’s a really, really small amount relative to the security benefit you’re going to get,” Kane said. “Keeping multiple technologies in play is very worthwhile for the U.S. in getting that cost-effective solution — and being able to increase the capabilities of technology because you keep everyone trying to get the better mousetrap.” Determined to fill a critical hole in its ability to detect explosives, the TSA plans to have one or the other operating at nearly every security lane in America by 2014. The TSA has designated the scanners for “primary” screening: Officers will direct every passenger, including children, to go through either a metal detector or a body scanner, and the passenger’s only alternative will be to request a physical pat-down. How did the United States swing from considering such X-rays taboo to deeming them safe enough to scan millions of people a year? A new wave of terrorist attacks using explosives concealed on the body, coupled with the scanners’ low dose of radiation, certainly convinced many radiation experts that the risk was justified. But other factors helped the machines gain acceptance. Because of a regulatory Catch-22, the airport X-ray scanners have escaped the oversight required for X-ray machines used in doctors’ offices and hospitals. The reason is that the scanners do not have a medical purpose, so the FDA cannot subject them to the rigorous evaluation it applies to medical devices. Still, the FDA has limited authority to oversee some non-medical products and can set mandatory safety regulations. But the agency let the scanners fall under voluntary standards set by a nonprofit group heavily influenced by industry. As for the TSA, it skipped a public comment period required before deploying the scanners. Then, in defending them, it relied on a small body of unpublished research to insist the machines were safe, and ignored contrary opinions from U.S. and European authorities that recommended precautions, especially for pregnant women. Finally, the manufacturer, Rapiscan Systems, unleashed an intense and sophisticated lobbying campaign, ultimately winning large contracts. Both the FDA and TSA say due diligence has been done to assure the scanners’ safety. Rapiscan says it won the contract because its technology is superior at detecting threats. While the TSA says X-ray and millimeter-wave scanners are both effective, Germany decided earlier this year not to roll out millimeter-wave machines after finding they produced too many false positives. Most of the news coverage on body scanners has focused on privacy, because the machines can produce images showing breasts and buttocks. But the TSA has since installed software to make the images less graphic. While some accounts have raised the specter of radiation, this is the first report to trace the history of the scanners and document the gaps in regulation that allowed them to avoid rigorous safety evaluation. Little research on cancer risk of body scanners Humans are constantly exposed to ionizing radiation, a form of energy that has been shown to strip electrons from atoms, damage DNA and mutate genes, potentially leading to cancer. Most radiation comes from radon, a gas produced from naturally decaying elements in the ground. Another major source is cosmic radiation from outer space. Many common items, such as smoke detectors, contain tiny amounts of radioactive material, as do exit signs in schools and office buildings. As a result, the cancer risk from any one source of radiation is often small. Outside of nuclear accidents, such as that at Japan's Fukushima plant, and medical errors, the health risk comes from cumulative exposure. In Rapiscan’s Secure 1000 scanner, which uses ionizing radiation, a passenger stands between two large blue boxes and is scanned with a pencil X-ray beam that rapidly moves left to right and up and down the body. In the other machine, ProVision, made by defense contractor L-3 Communications, a passenger enters a chamber that looks like a round phone booth and is scanned with millimeter waves, a form of low-energy radio waves, which have not been shown to strip electrons from atoms or cause cancer. Only a decade ago, many states prohibited X-raying a person for anything other than a medical exam. Even after 9/11, such non-medical X-raying remains taboo in most of the industrialized world. In July, the European Parliament passed a resolution that security “scanners using ionizing radiation should be prohibited” because of health risks. Although the United Kingdom uses the X-ray machine for limited purposes, such as when passengers trigger the metal detector, most developed countries have decided to forgo body scanners altogether or use only the millimeter-wave machines. While the research on medical X-rays could fill many bookcases, the studies that have been done on the airport X-ray scanners, known as backscatters, fill a file no more than a few inches thick. None of the main studies cited by the TSA has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the gold standard for scientific research. Those tests show that the Secure 1000 delivers an extremely low dose of radiation, less than 10 microrems. The dose is roughly one-thousandth of a chest X-ray and equivalent to the cosmic radiation received in a few minutes of flying at typical cruising altitude. The TSA has used those measurements to say the machines are “safe.” Most of what researchers know about the long-term health effects of low levels of radiation comes from studies of atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By charting exposure levels and cancer cases, researchers established a linear link that shows the higher the exposure, the greater risk of cancer. Some scientists argue the danger is exaggerated. They claim low levels stimulate the repair mechanism in cells, meaning that a little radiation might actually be good for the body. But in the authoritative report on low doses of ionizing radiation, published in 2006, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed the research and concluded that the preponderance of research supported the linear link. It found “no compelling evidence” that there is any level of radiation at which the risk of cancer is zero. Radiation experts say the dose from the backscatter is negligible when compared to naturally occurring background radiation. Speaking to the 1998 FDA panel, Smith, the inventor, compared the increased risk to choosing to visit Denver instead of San Diego or the decision to wear a sweater versus a sport coat. Using the linear model, even such trivial amounts increase the number of cancer cases. Rebecca Smith-Bindman, a radiologist at the University of California, San Francisco, estimated that the backscatters would lead to only six cancers over the course of a lifetime among the approximately 100 million people who fly every year. David Brenner, director of Columbia University’s Center for Radiological Research, reached a higher number — potentially 100 additional cancers every year. “Why would we want to put ourselves in this uncertain situation where potentially we’re going to have some cancer cases?” Brenner asked. “It makes me think, really, why don’t we use millimeter waves when we don’t have so much uncertainty?” But even without the machines, Smith-Bindman said, the same 100 million people would develop 40 million cancers over the course of their lifetimes. In this sea of cancer cases, it would be impossible to identify the patients whose cancer is linked to the backscatter machines. How the scanners avoided strict oversight Although they deliberately expose humans to radiation, the airport X-ray scanners are not medical devices, so they are not subject to the stringent regulations required for diagnostic X-ray machines. If they were, the manufacturer would have to submit clinical data showing safety and effectiveness and be approved through a rigorous process by the FDA. If the machines contained radioactive material, they would have to report to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But because it didn’t fit into either category, the Secure 1000 was classified as an electronic product. The FDA does not review or approve the safety of such products. However, manufacturers must provide a brief radiation safety report explaining the dose and notify the agency if any overexposure is discovered. According to the FDA, no such incidents have been reported. Under its limited oversight of electronic products, the FDA could issue mandatory safety regulations. But it didn’t do so, a decision that flows from its history of supervising electronics. Regulation of electronic products in the United States began after a series of scandals. From the 1930s to the 1950s, it was common for a child to go to a shoe store and stand underneath an X-ray machine known as a fluoroscope to check whether a shoe was the right fit. But after cases arose of a shoe model’s leg being amputated and store clerks developing dermatitis from putting their hands in the beam to adjust the shoe, the practice ended. In 1967, General Electric recalled 90,000 color televisions that had been sold without the proper shielding, potentially exposing viewers to dangerous levels of radiation. The scandal prompted the creation of the federal Bureau of Radiological Health. “That ultimately led to a lot more aggressive program,” said John Villforth, who was the director of the bureau. Over the next decade, the bureau created federal safety standards for televisions, medical X-rays, microwaves, tanning beds, even laser light shows. But in 1982, the FDA merged the radiological health bureau into its medical-device unit. “I was concerned that if they were to combine the two centers into one, it would probably mean the ending of the radiation program because the demands for medical-device regulation were becoming increasingly great,” said Villforth, who was put in charge of the new Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “As I sort of guessed, the radiation program took a big hit.” The new unit became stretched for scarce resources as it tried to deal with everything from tongue depressors to industrial lasers. The government used to have 500 people examining the safety of electronic products emitting radiation. It now has about 20 people. In fact, the FDA has not set a mandatory safety standard for an electronic product since 1985. As a result, there is an FDA safety regulation for X-rays scanning baggage — but none for X-rays scanning people at airports. Meanwhile, scientists began developing backscatter X-rays, in which the waves are reflected off an object to a detector, for the security industry. The Secure 1000 people scanner was invented by Smith in 1991 and later sold to Rapiscan, then a small security firm based in southern California. The first major customer was the California prison system, which began scanning visitors to prevent drugs and weapons from getting in. But the state pulled the devices in 2001 after a group of inmates' wives filed a class-action lawsuit accusing the prisons of violating their civil liberties. The U.S. Customs Service deployed backscatter machines for several years but in limited fashion and with strict supervision. Travelers suspected of carrying contraband had to sign a consent form, and Customs policy prohibited the scanning of pregnant women. The agency abandoned them in 2006, not for safety reasons but because smugglers had learned where the machines were installed and adapted their methods to avoid them, said Rick Whitman, the radiation safety officer for Customs until 2008. Yet, even this limited application of X-ray scanning for security dismayed radiation safety experts. In 1999, the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, a nongovernmental organization, passed a resolution recommending that such screening be stopped immediately. The backscatter machines had also caught the attention of the 1998 FDA advisory panel, which recommended that the FDA establish government safety regulations for people scanners. Instead, the FDA decided to go with a voluntary standard set by a trade group largely comprising manufacturers and government agencies that wanted to use the machines. “Establishing a mandatory standard takes an enormous amount of resources and could take a decade to publish,” said Dan Kassiday, a longtime radiation safety engineer at the FDA. In addition, since the mid-1990s, Congress has directed federal safety agencies to use industry standards wherever possible instead of creating their own. The FDA delegated the task of establishing the voluntary standards to the American National Standards Institute. A private nonprofit that sets standards for many industries, ANSI convened a committee of the Health Physics Society, a trade group of radiation safety specialists. It was made up of 15 people, including six representatives of manufacturers of X-ray body scanners and five from U.S. Customs and the California prison system. There were few government regulators and no independent scientists. In contrast, the FDA advisory panel was also made up of 15 people — five representatives from government regulatory agencies, four outside medical experts, one labor representative and five experts from the electronic products industry, but none from the scanner manufacturers themselves. “I am more comfortable with having a regulatory agency — either federal or the states — develop the standards and enforce them,” Kaufman said. Such regulators, she added, “have only one priority, and that’s public health.” A representative of the Health Physics Society committee said that was its main priority as well. Most of the committee’s evaluation was completed before 9/11. The standard was published in 2002 and updated with minor changes in 2009. Ed Bailey, chief of California’s radiological health branch at the time, said he was the lone voice opposing the use of the machines. But after 9/11, his views changed about what was acceptable in pursuit of security. “The whole climate of their use has changed,” Bailey said. “The consequence of something being smuggled on an airplane is far more serious than somebody getting drugs into a prison.” Are Inspections Independent? While the TSA doesn’t regulate the machines, it must seek public input before making major changes to security procedures. In July, a federal appeals court ruled that the agency failed to follow rule-making procedures and solicit public comment before installing body scanners at airports across the country. TSA spokesman Michael McCarthy said the agency couldn’t comment on ongoing litigation. The TSA asserts there is no need to take additional precautions for sensitive populations, even pregnant women, following the guidance of the congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements. But other authorities have come to the opposite conclusion. A report by France’s radiation safety agency specifically warned against screening pregnant women with the X-ray devices. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration’s medical institute has advised pregnant pilots and flight attendants that the machine, coupled with their time in the air, could put them over their occupational limit for radiation exposure and that they might want to adjust their work schedules accordingly. No similar warning has been issued for pregnant frequent fliers. Even as people scanners became more widespread, government oversight actually weakened in some cases. Inspections of X-ray equipment in hospitals and industry are the responsibility of state regulators — and before 9/11, many states also had the authority to randomly inspect machines in airports. But that ended when the TSA took over security checkpoints from the airlines. Instead, annual inspections are done by Rapiscan, the scanners’ manufacturer. “As a regulator, I think there’s a conflict of interest in having the manufacturer and the facility inspect themselves,” Kaufman said. Last year, in reaction to public anger from members of Congress, passengers and advocates, the TSA contracted with the Army Public Health Command to do independent radiation surveys. But email messages obtained in a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a civil liberties group, raise questions about the independence of the Army surveys. One email sent by TSA health and safety director Jill Segraves shows that local TSA officials were given advance notice and allowed to “pick and choose” which systems the Army could check. That email also suggests that Segraves considered the Army inspectors a valuable public-relations asset: “They are our radiation myth busters,” she wrote to a local security director. Some TSA screeners are concerned about their own radiation exposure from the backscatters, but the TSA has not allowed them to wear badges that could measure it, said Milly Rodriguez, health and safety specialist for the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents TSA officers. “We have heard from members that sometimes the technicians tell them that the machines are emitting more radiation than is allowed,” she said. McCarthy, the TSA spokesman, said the machines are physically incapable of producing radiation above the industry standard. On the email, he said, the inspections allow screeners to ask questions about radiation and address concerns about specific machines. The company’s lobbying campaign While the TSA maintains that the body scanners are essential to preventing attacks on airplanes, it only began rolling them out nine years after 9/11. After the attempted shoe-bombing in December 2001, the federal government conducted a trial of a Rapiscan backscatter at the Orlando International Airport. But the revealing images drew protests that the machines amounted to a virtual strip search. The TSA considered the scanners again after two Chechen women blew up Russian airliners in 2004. Facing a continued outcry over privacy, the TSA instead moved forward with a machine known as a “puffer” because it released several bursts of air on the passengers’ clothes and analyzed the dislodged particles for explosives. But after discovering the machines were ineffective in the field and difficult to maintain, the TSA canceled the program in 2006. Around that time, Rapiscan began to beef up its lobbying on Capitol Hill. It opened a Washington, D.C., office and, according to required disclosures, more than tripled its lobbying expenditures in two years, from less than $130,000 in 2006 to nearly $420,000 in 2008. It hired former legislative aides to Rep. David Price, D-N.C., then chairman of the homeland security appropriations subcommittee, and to Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. It started a political action committee and began contributing heavily to Price; Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., then head of the homeland security committee; Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., also on that committee; and Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., the top Republican on the Senate appropriations committee. In addition, it opened a new North Carolina plant in Price’s district and expanded its operations in Ocean Springs, Miss., and at its headquarters in Torrance, Calif., in Harman’s district. “Less than a month after U.S. Senator Trent Lott and other local leaders helped officially open Rapiscan Systems’ new Ocean Springs factory,” Lott’s office announced in a news release in late 2006, “the company has won a $9.1 million Department of Defense contract.” But Rapiscan still hadn’t landed a major contract to roll out its X-ray body scanners in commercial airports. Indeed, in 2007, with new privacy filters in place, the TSA began a trial of millimeter-wave and backscatter machines at several major airports, after which the agency opted to go with the millimeter-wave machines. The agency said health concerns weren’t a factor. But with the 2009 federal stimulus package, which provided $300 million for checkpoint security machines, the TSA began deploying backscatters as well. Rapiscan won a $173 million, multiyear contract for the backscatters, with an initial $25 million order for 150 systems to be made in Mississippi. Three other companies — American Science & Engineering, Tek84 Engineering Group and Valley Forge Composite Technologies — make X-ray scanners, but none are used by the TSA.Peter Kant, executive vice president for Rapiscan, said the company expanded its lobbying because its business was increasingly affected by the government. “There’s a lot of misinformation about the technology; there’s a lot of questions about how various inspection technologies work,” he said. “And we needed a way to be able to provide that information and explain the technology and how it works, and that’s what lobbying is.” The lawmakers either declined to comment or said the lobbying, campaign contributions and local connections had nothing to do with the TSA’s decision to purchase Rapiscan machines. The TSA said the contract was bid competitively and that the winning machines had to undergo comprehensive research and testing phases before being deployed. While the scanners were appearing in more and more airports, few passengers went through them, because they were used mostly for random screening or to resolve alarms from the metal detector. That changed on Christmas Day 2009, when a Nigerian man flying to Detroit tried to ignite a pouch of explosives hidden in his underwear. Following the foiled “Great Balls of Fire” suicide bombing, as the New York Postdubbed it, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano ramped up plans to roll out body scanners nationwide. Members of Congress and aviation security experts also pushed heavily for the TSA to install more machines that could detect explosives on passengers. Harman sent a letter to Napolitano, noting that Rapiscan was in her district. “I urge you to expedite installation of scanning machines in key airports,” Harman wrote in the letter, which was first reported by the website CounterPunch. “If you need additional funds, I am ready to help.” Michael Chertoff, who had supported body scanners while secretary of Homeland Security, appeared frequently on TV advocating their use. In one interview, he disclosed that his consulting firm, Chertoff Group, had done work for Rapiscan, sparking accusations that he was trying to profit from his time as a government servant. Despite the criticism, little has been revealed about the relationship. Rapiscan dismissed it, asserting that the consulting work had to do with international cargo and port security issues — not aviation. “There was nothing that was not above board,” Kant said. “His comments about passenger screening and these machines were simply his own and was nothing that we had engaged the Chertoff Group for.” In a statement, the Chertoff Group said it “played no role in the sale of whole body imaging technology to TSA” and that Chertoff “was in no way compensated for his public statements.” A public records request by ProPublica turned up empty: The Department of Homeland Security said it could not find any correspondence to or from Chertoff related to body scanners. DHS also said Chertoff did not use email. The TSA plans to deploy 1,275 backscatter and millimeter-wave scanners covering more than half its security lanes by the end of 2012 and 1,800 covering nearly all the lanes by 2014. According to annual reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, OSI Systems, the parent company of Rapiscan, has seen revenue from its security division more than double since 2006 to nearly $300 million in fiscal year 2011. Miles O’Brien and Kate Tobin of PBS NewsHour contributed to this report.

The full-body airport scanners that have prompted controversy on these shores have now been banned throughout the European Union, reports ProPublica. The fracas in the US has largely been over privacy, but the EU’s decision was a matter of “health and safety,” it says. The X-ray scanners in the US use ionizing radiation, which has been linked to cancer—studies suggest a handful of cases out of hundreds of millions of passengers. Instead, EU countries will use millimeter-wave scanners, which employ radio frequency waves and have not been linked to cancer. The TSA uses such millimeter-wave scanners, too; among the 500 scanners currently in use in the US, about half are body scanner (also known as backscatter) and half millimeter-wave. Read the full ProPublica post here or an earlier report on the health concerns here.

Science and technology is traditionally divided into three broad categories: basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development. Basic research attempts to produce new knowledge in a scientific or technological area. This research is not associated with a specific weapon system. Applied research supports the development and maturation of new technologies for a defined military application. Advanced development entails large-scale hardware development and technology integration in more operationally realistic settings. Research and development beyond these categories is done in support of a specific weapon system. In the Air Force, the focal point for science and technology investments is the Air Force Research Laboratory. It was created in 1997 to centrally manage all Air Force science and technology efforts. Previously, the Air Force operated 13 different laboratories across the country. The present Air Force Research Laboratory, headquartered at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, comprises 10 technology directorates. Nine directorates handle applied and advanced development projects. The 10th directorate, the Office of Scientific Research, manages the Air Force’s basic research projects. The Air Force Research Laboratory biennially generates a comprehensive strategic plan that supports the national military strategy and the Air Force Strategic Plan. In the past, the Air Force was a leader in high-technology exploration. According to a January 2000 Air Force Association study, the Air Force was the unquestioned leader in science and technology investments at the end of the Cold War. In the 1990s, however, it dropped to third place, behind the Army and Navy. The Congress has been concerned about the Air Force’s level of investment in science and technology. For fiscal year 2000, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees noted that the Air Force in particular, had failed to comply with the science and technology funding objective specified in the prior year’s authorization act, thus jeopardizing the stability of the technology base and increasing the risk of failure to maintain technological superiority in future weapons systems. In 2001, the Scientific Advisory Board found that the Air Force’s science and technology program needed to improve its planning process and generate stronger user support and sponsorship. It also found weaknesses in the connection between operational requirements and science and technology programs, which inhibited the prioritization of investments. The Air Force complied with the overall requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act regarding long-term challenges. (See table 1 for the checklist of provisions.) The act defined a long-term challenge as a high-risk, high-payoff effort that will provide a focus for research in the next 20 to 50 years. To identify potential long-term challenges, an Air Force review team obtained over 140 ideas from a variety of sources in the scientific community. Ideas ranged from cloaking technologies (the deceptive masking of assets) and holodeck command capabilities (virtual reality battlespace control) to micro weapons like ubiquitous “battle bees” (miniaturized unmanned air vehicles) and cyber warfare technologies. The team evaluated these ideas to ensure that they complied with the three primary criteria specified in the act. The potential long-term challenges had to involve (1) compelling Air Force requirements; (2) high-risk, high- payoff areas of exploration; and (3) very difficult but achievable results. Yet another provision in the act required that the team should avoid selecting projects that are linear extensions of ongoing science and technology projects. This provision was more difficult to assess, but after additional deliberations, the team determined that the following six challenges satisfied the criteria in the act: Finding and Tracking. To provide the decision maker with target quality information from anywhere in near real-time. Command and Control. To assess, plan, and direct aerospace operations from anywhere or from multiple locations in near real-time. Controlled Effects. To create precise effects rapidly, with the ability to retarget quickly against complex target sets anywhere, anytime, for as long as required. Sanctuary. To protect our total force from natural and man-made hazards or threats, allowing us to operate anywhere with the lowest risk possible. Rapid Aerospace Response. To respond as quickly as necessary to support peacetime operations or crises and move this response to another location very rapidly if needed. Effective Aerospace Persistence. To sustain the flow of equipment and supplies as well as the application of force for as long as required. Once the long-term challenges were identified, the Air Force followed the planning process specified in the act. For example, it established six work groups tasked with identifying possible approaches to address these challenges. The groups had about 9 weeks to complete their work. As required, a technical coordinator, assisted by a management coordinator, headed each group. Each group also complied with the requirement to hold a workshop within the science and technology community to obtain suggestions on possible approaches and promising areas of research. The workshop participants satisfied the requirement to identify current work that addresses the challenge, deficiencies in current work, and promising areas of research. Finally, the groups were also expected to select projects that were not linear extensions of current science and technology work. This particular provision was not easy for some groups to define. Some pondered the relative nature of the term. For example, a user would perceive “nonlinearity” differently than a scientist. Another group characterized it as a quantum leap in capability. Another definition associated nonlinear projects with multiple-capability dimensions. For example, if doubling the payload capacity of a weapon is a linear extension, then doubling the payload, speed, and range of the weapon would also be a nonlinear extension. Regardless of the definition selected, each group addressed the issue in its planning process. Each group summarized the results of its workshop in a briefing that contained enabling capabilities, research areas, technology roadmaps, and associated funding requirements. In many cases, the level of funding projections was double or triple the level of the planned budget. For example, the level of funding projections for basic research in physics, materials, mathematics, and computer science was more than triple the planned investment levels. The Air Force complied with the overall provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act regarding short-term objectives. (See table 2 for the checklist of provisions.) As required, the Air Force established a task force consisting of representatives from the Air Force Chief of Staff and combatant commands to identify short-term objectives. The task force obtained about 58 ideas from the requirements, user, and acquisition communities as specified in the act. Because of the mandated short-term focus, most of the input involved enhancing or accelerating ongoing research efforts—not initiating entirely new areas of research. These ideas included maintaining aging aircraft, combat identification, and time-critical targeting. While these are not new concepts, they still present significant technological challenges. We have recently reported on weaknesses in each of these areas. The task force reviewed each idea to ensure that it complied with the criteria in the act: (1) to involve compelling Air Force requirements, (2) to have support within the user community, and (3) to likely attain the desired benefits within 5 years. To ensure that each idea represented a compelling Air Force requirement, the task force evaluated each idea against the Air Force’s core competencies and critical future capabilities. To meet the user support requirement, the task force linked each potential short-term objective to specific mission needs and requirements documents. The objectives were reviewed and approved by the Air Force’s corporate structure. To ensure that the projects selected would achieve results in 5 years, the task force decided to use the technology maturity levels highlighted in a recent GAO report. The following is a list of the eight short-term objectives. Target Location, Identification, and Track. To detect, locate, track, and identify air/ground targets anytime in countermeasure environments in near real time. Command, Control, Communication, Computers, and Intelligence. To dynamically assess, plan, and execute global missions. Precision Attack. To engage air and ground targets from manned and unmanned vehicles with the precision and speed necessary to bring about decisive results. Space Control. To increase the survivability of critical space assets. Access to Space. To improve access to space through responsive, cost- effective launch systems. Aircraft Survivability and Countermeasures. To improve the ability to survive and operate against airborne and ground threats in all environments. Sustaining Aging Systems. To extend the service life of aging aircraft and space launch systems with reduced manpower, reduced total ownership costs, and enhanced reliability. Air Expeditionary Forces Support. To provide air expeditionary forces with the ability to operate with highly responsive and agile combat support forces. After the objectives were identified, the Air Force complied with the planning process specified in the act. As required, it established an integrated product team to address each short-term objective. Each team was composed of a cross-cutting mix of officials from the requirements, user, and science and technology communities, as the act specified. According to many of the short-term objective team leaders, the cross- cutting nature of the teams was very productive. Not only did they believe that their planning was enhanced by the direct input from users and requirements officials, they also believed that the expertise and assistance from scientists in other laboratory directorates improved the process. Each team satisfied the requirement to identify, define, and prioritize the enabling capabilities necessary to meet the objectives. As required, each team identified the deficiencies in the enabling capabilities and projects necessary to eliminate the deficiencies. The teams summarized their work in briefings that contained prioritized lists of enabling capabilities, a definition of the objectives, technology roadmaps, and budget spreadsheets. The spreadsheets detailed the current and additional funding required to achieve the objectives. Obtaining the additional funding was a concern to many teams. Many teams identified funding requirements that greatly exceeded current funding levels; it was not uncommon for proposed annual funding levels to double or triple the level currently projected. For example, the Command, Control, Communication, Computer, and Intelligence team proposed programs that would require from 2.6 to over 4 times the planned annual investment. Another concern was the 15-year gap between the short-term objective and long-term challenge planning. According to the act’s provisions, the short- term teams were required to focus on technologies that would be mature in 5 years; the long-term teams focused on technologies needed 20 to 50 years in the future. According to laboratory officials, this mid-term gap constitutes much of the normal science and technology planning effort and represents a critical point in science and technology project development. This time frame is where science and technology can have a significant impact. The Air Force currently addresses this time frame in its normal planning process. In addition, this period is covered in the long-term challenge technology roadmaps, at least for the research efforts associated with those six challenges. The Air Force satisfied the top-level review requirements in the act. (See table 3 for the checklist of provisions.) The act required the secretary of the Air Force to conduct a timely review of the science and technology programs and to assess the budgetary resources needed to address the long- and short-term needs. The secretary delegated this responsibility to the deputy assistant secretary for Science, Technology and Engineering. The deputy complied with the requirement to conduct a review of the long- and short-term science and technology programs within the 1 year time limit specified in the act. On October 25, 2001, the deputy briefed the secretary on the final results and received his approval. The act also required the secretary to assess the fiscal year 2001 budget resources used and needed to adequately address science and technology needs. After consultation with representatives from the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, however, the deputy changed the budget baseline to fiscal year 2002. This was done to reflect the science and technology budget realignment occurring in fiscal year 2002. The deputy assessed the 2002 budget resources planned for science and technology programs and determined that they were adequately funded. The deputy noted, however, that the current level of funding would enable the programs to pursue the minimum level of scientific research. Additional funding would be required to pursue other projects. The deputy also complied with the provision to evaluate whether the ongoing and projected science and technology programs addressed the long- and short-term science and technology needs. He determined that the programs did address these needs, thus obviating the requirement to develop a course of action for science and technology programs that do not address the long- term challenges or short-term objectives. Finally, the act required the secretary to review the long-term challenges and short-term objectives and to identify additional work that should be undertaken to meet the challenges and objectives. The deputy complied with both provisions. Not only did he review the results of the long- and short-term planning efforts and identify additional work, but he also directed that the additional work be incorporated into the laboratory’s future planning, programming, and budget decisions. The deputy was in a unique position to address these requirements. He served not only as the overall review director for the science and technology planning process, but also as the chairman of the short-term objective task force. As a result, the deputy had many opportunities to review the work of both the long- term challenge and particularly the short-term objective planning teams. Because the Air Force complied with the provisions of the act, we are not making any recommendations in this report. The Department of Defense has reviewed this report and concurs with its contents. We conducted our work from May 2001 to January 2002 in compliance with generally accepted auditing standards. Additional information on our scope and methodology is located in appendix I. If you have any questions about the information contained in this letter, please call me at (202) 512-4530. Major contributors to this work included Robert Murphy, Rae Ann Sapp, and Kristin Pamperin. To document the extent to which the Air Force complied with the long- term planning process specified in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, we obtained appointment letters, membership rosters, initial guidance and work plans, meeting schedules, biographies of each technical coordinator, and a comprehensive listing of the initial long-term challenge ideas. We also obtained minutes from team meetings, weekly activity reports, E-mail communications, interim and final briefing reports, associated studies, workshop agendas and results, current and projected budget spreadsheets, capability lists, and promising research areas. To discuss how each team addressed the act’s provisions, we met with each long-term challenge technical coordinator and management coordinator. We also met with officials from the Air Force Research Laboratory’s headquarters and the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Technology, and Engineering. Finally, we physically observed the proceedings of one long-term challenge workshop over the course of 2 days. To determine whether each provision was addressed, we prepared summary checklists for each long-term challenge and keyed the data back to a specific provision of the act. To document the extent to which the Air Force complied with the short- term objective planning process specified in the act, we obtained appointment letters, membership rosters, initial guidance and work plans, meeting schedules, and a comprehensive listing of the initial short-term objective ideas. We also obtained weekly activity reports, short-term objective descriptive summaries, meeting minutes, E-mail communications, interim and final briefing reports, current and projected budget spreadsheets, and prioritized listings of enabling capabilities. To discuss how each team addressed the act’s provisions, we met with each short-term objective director. We also met with officials from the Air Force Research Laboratory’s headquarters and the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Technology, and Engineering. Finally, we physically observed the proceedings of one short-term objective workshop. To evaluate whether each provision was addressed, we prepared summary checklists for each short-term objective and keyed the data back to a specific provision of the act. To document the extent to which the Air Force complied with the program and budgetary resource assessment process specified in the act, we obtained the final weekly activity reports, internal correspondence, review schedule, and overview briefing. To evaluate whether each provision was addressed, we prepared a summary checklist and obtained a written summary of the Air Force’s actions to comply with the provisions. Finally, we discussed the Air Force’s actions with representatives from the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Science, Technology, and Engineering. 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 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. Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm, E-mail: [email protected], or 1-800-424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 (automated answering system).

Congress and the scientific community are concerned that the Air Force's investment in science and technology may be too low to meet the challenges presented by new and emerging threats. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 requires the Air Force to review its science and technology programs to assess the budgetary resources currently used and those needed to adequately address the challenges and objectives. GAO found that the Air Force complied with the requirements of section 252 of the act. The Air Force established an integrated product team to identify long-term science and technology challenges and a task force to identify short-term objectives. For each challenge or objective that was identified, the Air Force established teams to identify technological capabilities needed to achieve these goals. Each team chose research projects that addressed the criteria specified in the act. The Air Force also complied with the act's process provisions. The Deputy Assistant Director for Science, Technology and Engineering is required to review the teams' results and to identify any science and technology research not currently funded.

Jenny McCarthy would like to know, "What happened to critical thinking?" Jenny McCarthy wonders, "What happened to asking questions?" In an Op-Ed this weekend in the Chicago Sun-Times, the former co-host of "Singled Out" would like to make a case for reasoned skepticism and debate. Or maybe she feels like digging herself a little deeper in the hole of her own making. "The View" co-host has spent the past several years making a name for herself as an advocate for autism awareness and treatment – and a staunch critic of the American pediatric system of vaccination. In her Sun-Times piece, she fires back at critics she says have misrepresented her, insisting unambiguously, "I am not anti-vaccine" and that "For years, I have repeatedly stated that I am, in fact, 'pro-vaccine.'" McCarthy says that she was inspired by her "beautiful son Evan" to a "desire for knowledge that could lead to options and alternate schedules, but never to eliminate the vaccines." And she says that "I believe in the importance of a vaccine program and I believe parents have the right to choose one poke per visit. I’ve never told anyone to not vaccinate. Should a child with the flu receive six vaccines in one doctor visit? Should a child with a compromised immune system be treated the same way as a robust, healthy child? Shouldn’t a child with a family history of vaccine reactions have a different plan? Or at least the right to ask questions?" When she puts it like that, she sounds perfectly reasonable. She's simply asking that parents advocate for their children and ask questions about their vaccine schedules. She's encouraging individualized treatment, and dialogue between parents and pediatricians on what works best for each child. And if you've ever watched your baby or toddler lapse into droopiness and fever after getting shots, you can surely understand a little the power of these drugs that are being injected into tiny bodies, and the need for doctor-patient communication. We are, furthermore, a nation of increasingly skeptical, outspoken parents, and that's generally a good thing. We speak up and say that maybe we don't want our children to be test monkeys for the dubious Common Core standards. We demand better labeling on the foods our children eat and stand up against sexism in the toy aisle. We don't passively accept conventional behavior if it's not in the best interests of our children. And so why wouldn't we question the pharmaceutical industry? Just this week the FDA recalled several batches of potentially contaminated Paxil and tampered weight loss drugs, while the makers of the antibiotic Suprax issued a voluntary recall. What happened to critical thinking and asking questions, Jenny McCarthy? I'd say plenty of us are all for them. But if McCarthy is wondering why people make fun of her on Twitter, let me assure her it's not because of her far too subtle and sophisticated powers of reasoning. In her Sun-Times piece, she presents herself as just a regular mom with "concern with inflexible thinking." She conspicuously doesn’t mention her son Evan's autism, and her very well-documented speculation that his condition was related to his vaccines. Sure, in a 2009 Time story she said that "People have the misconception that we want to eliminate vaccines. Please understand that we are not an anti-vaccine group. We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins." But then she rather confrontationally added, "If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want the measles or the autism, we will stand in line for the f_cking measles." And that wasn't the only considerably more forceful comment she's ever made about her feelings about vaccination. Seven years ago, she sat down with Oprah Winfrey and asked, "What number does it have to be? What number will it take for people just to start listening to what the mothers of children who have autism have been saying for years? Which is that we vaccinated our baby and something happened … Right before his MMR shot, I said to the doctor, 'I have a very bad feeling about this shot. This is the 'autism' shot, isn't it?'' And he said, 'No, that is ridiculous. It is a mother's desperate attempt to blame something,' and he swore at me and then the nurse gave [Evan] the shot. And I remember going, 'Oh, God, I hope he's right.' And soon thereafter -- boom -- the soul's gone from his eyes." In 2009, McCarthy told Time, "I do believe sadly it’s going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it’s their f_cking fault that the diseases are coming back. They’re making a product that’s sh_t. If you give us a safe vaccine, we’ll use it. It shouldn’t be polio versus autism." She has told CNN, "Without a doubt in my mind I believe vaccinations triggered Evan's autism. We do believe because we were the witness with our child, a firsthand witness, after we came home from the doctor's office and saw this regression of a child who was perfect slowly fading away…. People are also dying from vaccinations. Evan, my son, died in front of me for two minutes. You ask any mother in the autism community if we'll take the flu, the measles, over autism and day of the week. I think they need to wake up and stop hurting our kids." To Larry King, she has defined autism by saying, "I believe that it's an infection and/or toxins and/or funguses on top of vaccines that push children into this neurological downside." And in a HuffPo piece just three years ago, she stated unambivalently, "I know children regress after vaccination because it happened to my own son." Yet in recent months, thanks to her high-profile gig on "The View" and a roaring resurgence of measles and other previously all but wiped out diseases, McCarthy's confident swagger has been considerably challenged. And in its attempt to distance itself from the unpopular anti-vax narrative, McCarthy's Generation Rescue organization appears to have quietly removed some of its less "gray" statements. McCarthy's narrative about her son's vaccination experience is no longer there, nor its statement of support for Dr. Andrew Wakefield's discredited work on autism -- which Lancet has called "dishonest and irresponsible." But in case you're wondering, in 2010 Generation Rescue declared that "Dr. Wakefield's journey began with twelve children with autism. Like many of our kids, all twelve of them regressed into autism, and eight of the parents blamed their child's regression on the MMR vaccine, just as tens of thousands of other parents do …. Dr. Andrew Wakefield is perhaps this debate's greatest hero." If McCarthy wants to restate that she has not definitively told parents not to vaccinate, okey-doke. Technically speaking, she's right. But she could have chosen also to admit in her weekend Op-Ed that she's been extremely sure of herself in the past about what she believes are the risks of vaccination, and her son's own autism. Instead she either manipulatively or just plain ignorantly has now tried to rebrand herself as a dweller of the space of healthy skepticism, refusing to even address her past years and years of blatant accusations. You can't claim that you never out and out said "Don't vaccinate" without throwing it in there that you've also stated that you've no doubt that vaccinations trigger autism and that you're cool with diseases coming back. And you sure don't get to boo hoo how you've been "wrongly branded," not when your own words have done all the branding for you. ||||| Fox’s Megyn Kelly was joined by contributor Dana Loesch Tuesday night to discuss the The View co-host Jenny McCarthy’s latest assertions that she’s not actually “anti-vaccine” as she claims the media has made her out to be. Kelly and Loesch, who both have young children, urged parents to listen to their pediatricians and not the celebrity host. After playing a montage of McCarthy’s most strident anti-vaccine rhetoric, Kelly said it’s “shocking” to hear her talk about being “pro-vaccine” after all those statements she made in the past. Loesch agreed, saying she is “shocked” as well, especially after discussing the issue with McCarthy as a guest host on The View. “Science is disputing this,” Loesch said. “This is a really serious issue. And, you know, Megyn you have little ones, I have kids as well. And I don’t like being looked at as though I’m a bad mother if I don’t believe whatever junk science comes out one day to the next about vaccinations. All I know is that when I have a question about vaccination schedules, I’m going to go to my pediatrician who has studied this.” Kelly tried to give McCarthy the benefit of the doubt by playing some of the “context” she feels has been left out by the media, but at the same time lamented the “big influence” she appears to have on the culture. She said pediatricians have an increasingly hard time getting their message across when they have to compete with this “vivacious, beautiful, well-known celebrity holding up her child who has autism saying “‘I’m telling you the vaccine did it!'” “If you care about the health of your child,” Loesch added, “go and investigate this further than just listening to what a celebrity says on it.” Watch video below, via Fox News: Please enable Javascript to watch. [photo via screengrab] — — >> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter ||||| Jenny McCarthy: The gray area on vaccines BY JENNY MCCARTHY Jenny McCarthy with her son, Evan, in February. | Charles Sykes/AP storyidforme: 64845492 tmspicid: 23223139 fileheaderid: 11311245 Updated: I am not “anti-vaccine.” This is not a change in my stance nor is it a new position that I have recently adopted. For years, I have repeatedly stated that I am, in fact, “pro-vaccine” and for years I have been wrongly branded as “anti-vaccine.” My beautiful son, Evan, inspired this mother to question the “one size fits all” philosophy of the recommended vaccine schedule. I embarked on this quest not only for myself and my family, but for countless parents who shared my desire for knowledge that could lead to options and alternate schedules, but never to eliminate the vaccines. Blatantly inaccurate blog posts about my position have been accepted as truth by the public at large as well as media outlets (legitimate and otherwise), who have taken those false stories and repeatedly turned them into headlines. What happened to critical thinking? What happened to asking questions because every child is different? For my child, I asked for a schedule that would allow one shot per visit instead of the multiple shots they were and still are giving infants. I am passionate about important conversations on how we can improve health care for our children and generations to come. This is an extremely important discussion and I am dumbfounded that these conversations are discounted and negated because the answers are not black or white. Again I ask, what happened to critical thinking? A recent column by a blogger named Nancy Colasurdo states: “Here’s how it goes in this country, like everything else — black or white. Those are your choices. You either fall in line with 40-plus vaccines your doctor recommends on his or her schedule or you’re a wack-job ‘anti-vaxxer.’ Heaven forbid you think the gray zone is an intelligent place to reside and you express doubt or fear or maybe want to spread the vaccines out a bit on this tiny person you’ve brought into the world.” Her words echo and articulate my concern with inflexible thinking. This is the real view I, Jenny McCarthy, hold. The gray one! This is what I have said: “People have the misconception that we want to eliminate vaccines,” I told Time Magazine science editor Jeffrey Kluger in 2009. “Please understand that we are not an anti-vaccine group. We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins.” This is what I believe: I believe in the importance of a vaccine program and I believe parents have the right to choose one poke per visit. I’ve never told anyone to not vaccinate. Should a child with the flu receive six vaccines in one doctor visit? Should a child with a compromised immune system be treated the same way as a robust, healthy child? Shouldn’t a child with a family history of vaccine reactions have a different plan? Or at least the right to ask questions? I will continue to say what I have always said: “One size does not fit all.” God help us all if gray is no longer an option. Jenny McCarthy writes a column for the Sun-Times Splash section and appears on ABC’s “The View.” ||||| Dean McDermott is working on both his sobriety and his marriage. According to an eyewitness, McDermott visited My 12 Step Store on Tuesday afternoon in West Hollywood, Calif. after attending an AA meeting and RadarOnline.com has all the exclusive details — including what he had to say about wife Tori Spelling. The shop is a resource used by those in recovery to buy books, AA coins and medallions and AA jewelry “to help you celebrate life moving forward.” PHOTOS: In Sickness & In Health: Tori Spelling Visits Love Rat Hubby Dean McDermott In Rehab Again — With Film Crew In Tow “Dean stopped in after an AA meeting and bought a few things, including stickers for his motorcycle helmet,” the source told Radar. “He also bought some books and meditation stuff.” And all these things are to help McDermott, 47, salvage his marriage to Spelling, 40, after he was accused of cheating on her with numerous women and subsequently completed a stint in rehab. PHOTOS: Inside Tori Spelling’s Life Of Lies: Her 20 Most Shocking Fake-Outs, Half-Truths & Hidden Secrets Revealed “Dean said he needed the stuff he bought to help his marriage. He said he’s trying to get sober and repair the damage he did to Tori,” the source said. “He wants to be there for Tori because he said she’s really co-dependent when it comes to their relationship together.” Radar published photos of the stickers McDermott bought above. PHOTOS: In Sickness & In Health: Tori Spelling Visits Love Rat Hubby Dean McDermott In Rehab Again — With Film Crew In Tow This comes on the heels of a stunning confession by McDermott in the teaser for the couple’s new reality TV show in which he says cheating on his wife was his worst nightmare and admits, “I was out of control. “Sex was an escape, just like drugs and alcohol.” The teaser delved into McDermott’s purported sex addiction with Tori in tears saying, “I can never give him enough sex. He’s never going to be happy with just me.” ||||| 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. ||||| Dear Jenny: Look, it’s clear we haven’t always gotten along, and it was never likely we would. You believe vaccines cause autism, that they are related to OCD, ADHD and other physical and behavioral ills, that they are overprescribed, teeming with toxins, poorly regulated and that the only reason we keep forcing them into the sweet, pristine immune systems of children is because doctors, big pharma and who-knows what-all sinister forces want it that way. I live on Earth. Yes, I have often called you out by name, never favorably, and you’ve always left me alone—until today at least, when you name-checked me in a jaw-droppingly disingenuous piece you wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times, trying to launder your long, deeply troubling, anti-vaccine history. You quote yourself from earlier interviews in which you said: “People have the misconception that we want to eliminate vaccines,” I told Time Magazine science editor Jeffrey Kluger in 2009. “Please understand that we are not an anti-vaccine group. We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins.” That’s absolutely true, you did say those things. But let’s take a look at some of the other things you said in that same interview, such as the way you responded when I asked you about the outbreaks of polio that have occurred in Africa, Asia and American Amish communities when vaccines are not administered: I do believe sadly it’s going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it’s their f*cking fault that the diseases are coming back. They’re making a product that’s sh*t. If you give us a safe vaccine, we’ll use it. It shouldn’t be polio versus autism. Then there was your answer when I asked you if you didn’t believe (like the overwhelming majority of doctors, research institutions and medical journals everywhere on the planet) that the rise in the incidence of autism has nothing to do with vaccines and is just a result of better recognition of autism symptoms, a widening of the diagnostic criteria for the condition and, as often happens, some overdiagnosing too: All you have to do is find a schoolteacher or principal and ask them that question. They would say they’ve never seen so much ADHD, autism, OCD as in the past. I think we’re overdiagnosing it by maybe 1%. Now you look around and there are five shadows — kids with disabilities — in every class. And about that line in which you claimed not to be anti-vaccine. Let’s take a look at the entire quote: People have the misconception that we want to eliminate vaccines. Please understand that we are not an antivaccine group. We are demanding safe vaccines. We want to reduce the schedule and reduce the toxins. If you ask a parent of an autistic child if they want the measles or the autism, we will stand in line for the f*cking measles. Yes, and if you ask people whether they’d prefer witches to be burned at the stake or their community to be demonically possessed, they’ll stand in line for the witch burnings too. But they don’t have to make that choice because witchcraft is make-believe, as is your anti-vaccine nonsense. Jenny, as outbreaks of measles, mumps and whooping cough continue to appear in the U.S.—most the result of parents refusing to vaccinate their children because of the scare stories passed around by anti-vaxxers like you—it’s just too late to play cute with the things you’ve said. You are either floridly, loudly, uninformedly antivaccine or you are the most grievously misunderstood celebrity of the modern era. Science almost always prefers the simple answer, because that’s the one that’s usually correct. Your quote trail is far too long—and you have been far too wrong—for the truth not to be obvious. Sincerely, Jeff

Jenny McCarthy is living the dream of adolescent girls in the late '80s: She's marrying Donnie Wahlberg. The View co-host announced their engagement on the show today, E! reports. Her son, Evan, helped Wahlberg propose: "This weekend I was sitting with Donnie and he went into the other room and out came Evan with a card that said 'Will.' And he ran away and came back with a card that said 'You,' and I knew what was happening and I just started crying," she recounted. "And then he came out with a card that said 'Marry,' but it was spelled 'Mary,' and the last time Donnie came out with Evan and Evan's shirt said 'Me?' and he was holding the ring. He asked, 'Will you marry me?'" After McCarthy said yes, 11-year-old Evan whooped, "I have another dad!" and everyone started crying, she said. No date has been set, but the pair, dating publicly since July, could wed as soon as August, she said. McCarthy was also in the news over the weekend, after she wrote an op-ed clarifying that she's "not anti-vaccine," she simply thinks vaccines are a "gray area" and she questions "the 'one size fits all' philosophy of the recommended vaccine schedule." That's not good enough, however, for many critics who quickly hit back. (In less happy celebrity romance news, Tori Spelling and Dean McDermott have publicly acknowledged McDermott's cheating—and McDermott says he's trying to save their marriage.)

Jon Stewart's announcement last Thursday of his " Rally to Restore Sanity " on Oct. 30 has, not surprisingly, generated significant interest from "Daily Show" fans. (The current number of people signed up on the rally's Facebook page is 140,000). But it also prompted some confusion, even from longtime fans. What is Stewart trying to achieve? Does this mark a more formal embrace of politics? Will this change the way he's perceived? Salon spoke to Taylor Branch, Pulitzer Prize-winning civil rights historian and scholar of mass political movements, about Stewart's role in popular culture and politics and what benefits and risks the rally holds for him. (We also asked Branch about the controversial New York Times Op-Ed he recently penned expressing sympathy for Glenn Beck's 8/28 "Restoring Honor" rally.) What do you think the goal of Stewart's rally is? Well, I don't know. He always says his job is straightforwardly to entertain and poke fun at the news. Do you think that's true? Do I believe him? I don't know. He has stepped out of that role a couple of times. Years and years ago he went on "Crossfire," on CNN, and scolded them, saying that they were just entertaining people with emotional argument for argument's sake, without any interest whatsoever in asking any questions or solving any problems. And that therefore it was just entertainment -- and that that was his job. That seemed to be a foray into serious politics, you know, saying, "I'm supposed to be the clown, not you guys." I don't know whether that's what he has in mind here or not, because he hasn't really said. But I think whenever people in a public position like that do things that are unexpected, that involve some sort of surprise and or risk, we need to pay attention to what they say, because maybe it'll provoke something new. What kind of risk might it involve? Well, [there is a risk] if he gets serious and goes out there and tries to be a politician himself, and recommend what needs to be done. He can afford to do that only in small doses, because otherwise he'll become one of the politicians that other people are lampooning. One of the major themes of Stewart's announcement was his desire to attract "reasonable" people. Is there any historical precedent for this -- for an event that sells itself as something primarily for moderates? On the face of it, yes. Politics, when you're actually trying to do something, is about moderates. Extremists can push things and raise new questions, but what made [King's] march on Washington significant in 1963 was that a proposition to change the power relations of the entire South, which had seemed preposterous and hopeless only a decade before, suddenly was in the range of passage in the Congress, because a bill to do so had been introduced by the president. On the one hand, the country was scared to death, because it was totally unfamiliar with the idea of black people on the main stage of national politics; on the other hand, they were rallying to support a bill that had been introduced by the president -- a bill that did pass the next year. So it's obviously moderate. Things that are political on the Mall are often about things that are moderate, because they're trying to direct people's attention to things that are important. They're not all fringe groups; they're not all George Lincoln Rockwell and the Nazis. I really don't know why Jon Stewart did this -- to one degree, he might be at risk of overplaying Glenn Beck's rally rather than dismissing it. If he's trying to respond to it by answering it, that elevates it. Some suggest Stewart is not "answering" Beck's rally at all, but rather that he is trying to take the media to task for magnifying the voice of a tiny minority of the population (in publicizing events like Glenn Beck's rally and Tea Party meetings), by showing that he can succeed in gathering however many thousand self-proclaimed moderates, just for an afternoon of anything but political polemic. Well, that's a very, very political ambition. I don't know whether it will work -- it might be very boring. To the degree that he's complaining about the level of public discourse that is guided and shaped by the media, I think he's right. He's lived off of that on his show forever, but his show is his self-proclaimed medium, and he's never proclaimed a serious purpose -- or very, very seldom -- on his show. People have to guess what that purpose is, because he's an entertainer. So this is a different kind of thing. If he goes down there and says moderate things at his rally, he'll bore people to death. In terms of comedy, I think Stephen Colbert is also toeing a fine line with his "Rally to Keep Fear Alive," because to me the politics of fear-mongering is very unhealthy. It's old and it's been around forever, but we seem to be in a pretty severe patch of it. On the other hand, if you ridicule fear in a blanket way you risk overlooking the fact that there are a lot of people who are genuinely afraid in this economy and in this political world. They're afraid, and they're confused. You know, some of the people at the Glenn Beck rally may be fearful and confused as much as they're hateful, which is what people's image of them is. Fear-mongering is a bad thing, and it really has driven a lot of our political discourse, and it's good to make fun of it. But a lot of the fear in today's world is real. I suppose the real question might be: Even though Stewart is painting his rally as a comic event, might this, in its own way, be as earnest as a rally held by Glenn Beck? [Laughs.] Well, I think it's a big venture and I don't really know. I will say this about the media. In my view, the biggest change in the media, which is not healthy, since the civil rights era, is how comfortable we are today in presuming in advance what people's motives are, and writing about people's motives rather than what they actually say and do. I don't really know what Stewart's motives are, but since he does have a following and this [rally] is very unusual, I recommend listening to what he actually says, and then forming a judgment about whether this was primarily for entertainment, or whether he's tired of just being a comedian and wants to actively try to influence the political world. So we have to wait and see? I think so. The only way we can divine his motives is on the basis of our own preconceptions about the world. And that's not a good formula for politics, I don't think. But we'll see. I'm looking forward to it. Some people who are familiar with your work were a little bit surprised to read your piece about Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally in the New York Times. Yes, my goodness, I've been pilloried by all of my old friends. When somebody does something surprising, I think at the very least we should listen to what they say. I think most of the people that reacted to my column about Beck didn't listen to what Beck actually said at the rally. We're all very comfortable in the labels that we apply to everybody else right now; [most of my critics] didn't see the label "Glenn Beck" and the label "Martin Luther King biographer" as going together, so they were shocked when I said, you know, listen to what he actually said, he's talking about nonviolence, he's talking about going to any church, mosque or synagogue where they're not preaching hatred. It's not what you expect from Glenn Beck. So you stand by everything you wrote in the New York Times? Oh, absolutely. My mom's been upset, because she said she tuned in to some of his shows afterward, and he said such hateful things that she had to turn it off. But then she called back the other day to say he had the head of the American Alliance for Jews and Christians on there talking about bigotry, and some relative of Gandhi talking about nonviolence. She said, "I don't know what to make of this stuff." I knew I was going to get in trouble with a lot of people when I wrote that piece, but nothing good comes without a risk. I don't even know when [Beck's] show is on -- quite frankly, the irony is, the only Glenn Beck I've ever seen other than that rally, which I felt a duty to sit down and not only watch but to transcribe and to study and that sort of thing, was on Jon Stewart's show! Because [Stewart] has clips of Beck all the time. That is literally the only place where I've ever seen Glenn Beck. I haven't watched his show even once. I've only heard a report from my mom. Is there a possibility, then, that since you hadn't watched any of Glenn Beck's shows before the rally, you might have taken the rally out of context? I don't know that his previous shows set a context for the rally. The rally was a three-hour event on its own. It was a surprise to me that he wanted to do this; I wanted to find out about it, but I didn't feel that I needed to go back and listen to every Glenn Beck show. I do feel that, if Beck were to say that he was going to have another show about Martin Luther King or King's legacy, I have a responsibility, having to some degree vouched for what he said on one day, to look at it and to report on whether or not he's being consistent. But I haven't heard of anything like that to investigate, and I don't feel that I bought in to have to monitor him every day. My mom says he says pretty outrageous things at least two-thirds of the time. This interview has been edited and condensed. ||||| Whether Jared Loughner is a far-left nihilist or a right-wing racist or -- as he most likely is -- some weird politically incoherent amalgamation of extremist beliefs tinged with paranoia, he wasn't driven to murder by angry campaign slogans. Steve Kornacki's right -- Loughner was not a Gadsden Flag-wielding Tea Partyer incited to violence by the Twitter messages of Sarah Palin. But he is a product of the culture, and there's a reason he chose to attack a Democratic congresswoman. There's a reason why his paranoia was directed at an elected official, the closest representative of what he saw as in illegitimate government. The attempted assassination of a member of Congress seems depressingly like the inevitable conclusion of two years of hysterical revolutionary language suffusing every single domestic political debate. The Tea Parties are based around the rhetoric of the American Revolution, which was a violent insurrection. It makes a sad sort of sense that a bunch of comfortable white reactionaries would dress up their childish tantrums with such grandiose language, because "desperately protecting your privilege in the face of what appears to be the demise of the empire" sounds much less inspiring than "defeating tyranny." As the Republican Party has become more homogeneous, more regional and more reactionary, it has tended to make up for its growing demographic shortcomings by making sure its supporters are more motivated and energized -- and the most effective way to energize them has been to make sure they're constantly enraged. When the GOP didn't have the votes to stop healthcare reform from passing, their strategy -- and it almost worked -- was to scare Democratic elected officials. That was the point of telling everyone to shout themselves hoarse at the town halls: to terrify House members. Convince them that their constituents were incensed. If some LaRouchites or other unclassifiable political entities got into the mix, fine -- more voices for the choir of rage. What was formerly a sort of uneasy tolerance of the extremists inched closer to open acceptance. Roger Ailes allows Glenn Beck to run amok spreading classic Bircher paranoia. Matt Drudge links to conspiracy-mad broadcaster Alex Jones. Everyone in the party had to pretend to be cool with idiot extremist Oath Keeper Sharron Angle, because the craziness the right wing whipped up led its primary voters to select her over the safe party hack who would've handily defeated Harry Reid. There are connections -- both direct and spiritual -- between the far-right Patriot movements that flourished in the '90s and some of the more out there elements of the Tea Parties. When she's not talking about God, Sarah Palin's talking about guns. Practically all her rhetoric is blood-soaked, and proficiency with firearms is a key element of her persona. Her cult can claim her stupid map wasn't supposed to show rifle sights aimed at vulnerable Democratic districts, but anyone who's ever seen a violent movie -- which is to say, Americans of all ages -- knows what cross hairs look like. "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD" isn't one unfortunate incident of over-the-top language, it's her mantra. "Going Rogue" begins with that line, attributed to her father. Everyone uses battle-related language in politics, of course. "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," candidate Barack Obama said in 2008. Rahm Emanuel's comically exaggerated speech is the stuff of (probably embellished) legend. It's perfectly legitimate, if also often counterproductive and stupid, to pretend politics is blood sport. I'd also say that while you can argue the wisdom of either, there's a difference between using the imagery of politics as street fight and employing revolutionary rhetoric. And when you combine standard-issue violent political language with the idea -- stated and reiterated by nearly every prominent right-wing politician and media figure since Obama took office -- that the opponent is not simply wrong, but has illegitimately seized power, and is illegally exercising that power, the inevitable question raised is, "What do we do to stop them?" The correct answer is supposed to be "vote Republican and keep watching Fox," of course, but a good midterm for the GOP hasn't dethroned the socialist usurper-in-chief. It's not strictly that language tinged with violent imagery is dangerous, or that heated denunciations of the motivations of your political opponents are out of line, or even that America's pervasive gun fetishization is to blame (though our gun culture is insane and bizarre to every single other developed nation in the world) for violent crimes. But when elites don't just condone but participate in the combination of that violent imagery with the idea that the government represents an existential threat -- that representatives of the government are domestic enemies, that your liberty and even your physical safety are in danger -- the idea of political violence is normalized. Terrorizing Congress members at town halls and "we surround you" and head-stomping and death threats and all the other bad craziness just becomes "the way we do politics in America." The crazies are listening to the same media that the rest of us are. Charles Alan Wilson, the man arrested last year for threatening the life of Sen. Patty Murray, used the same language as Glenn Beck in his insane voice mails to Murray's office and borrowed Sarah Palin's death panels meme. (He also had a concealed weapons permit and carried a loaded .38 special.) When everyone's hoisting guns and shouting "tyranny" and playing at being a revolutionary, there will be a couple of people who don't see the wink. Was Erick Erickson on CNN this weekend, to deliver his brilliant political analysis? I imagine he would prefer not to be reminded of the time he got himself all worked up about new regulations on dishwasher detergent, and wrote this stirring call to arms: At what point do the people tell the politicians to go to hell? At what point do they get off the couch, march down to their state legislator’s house, pull him outside, and beat him to a bloody pulp for being an idiot? At some point soon, it will happen. It’ll be over an innocuous issue. But the rage is building. It’s not a partisan issue. There is bipartisan angst at out of control government made worse by dumb bans like this and unintended consequences like AIG’s bonus problems. If the GOP plays its cards right, it will have a winning issue in 2010. But it is going to have to get back to "leave me the hell alone" style federalism where the national government recedes and the people themselves will have to fight to take their states back from special interests out of touch with body politic as a whole. Were I in Washington State, I’d be cleaning my gun right about now waiting to protect my property from the coming riots or the government apparatchiks coming to enforce nonsensical legislation. This, again, was in response to a mildly inconvenient ban on certain types of dishwasher detergent that are polluting fresh groundwater. Will Joyce Kaufman be on WFTL tomorrow morning repeating her comments about what to do when voting doesn't produce the desired result? There's Dick Morris on Fox just throwing this out there: Maybe "those crazies in Montana who say, 'we're gonna kill ATF agents because the U.N.'s going to take over'" are "beginning to have a case." There's Michele Bachmann calling a climate-change bill "tyranny": There's also Michele Bachmann more explicitly calling for a revolution, invoking Jefferson's famous "tree of liberty" line. (That appearance, on Hannity, was as insane as Bachmann ever gets, babbling about a world currency, warning that the "link" of "our very freedom" was about to "break.") Even the goofiest of the sideshow midterm primary candidates presented themselves almost uniformly as not just the spiritual descendants of the Founders, but the would-be leaders of a new revolution. Alabama's Rick Barber is just sitting at a bar, chatting with Washington about how the IRS is the modern-day equivalent of George III: Democrat Joe Manchin didn't feel he could win his Senate race unless he filmed himself literally shooting liberal ideals to death, with a gun: Sharron Angle implicitly called for violence if Republicans couldn't win traditional elections. Some idiot from Glenn Beck's show says violent overthrow of the government is "on the table." Beck himself constantly presents the specter of vast cataclysmic violence as inevitable -- just around the corner, unless we turn back from liberalism soon. This stuff infects the whole culture. When this is the bed you make, you can't be too shocked when monsters hide under it. ||||| In front of the Lincoln Memorial in June, a group of students caught up in a moment of spontaneous patriotism broke into song. But the US Park Police were quick to shush the members of the Young America’s Foundation, saying singing is not allowed at the memorial. The song that was stifled? “The Star-Spangled Banner.” So much for freedom of speech. At the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Nonviolent Social Change in Atlanta this July, an official at the memorial to one of the greatest civil rights leaders in the world – my Uncle Martin – removed a bullhorn from the hands of Father Frank Pavone, an internationally recognized leader of the pro-life movement. We were a group more than 100 strong, in Atlanta to declare that abortion is the greatest violation of civil rights in our day. We brought a wreath to lay at Uncle Martin’s grave while we prayed, but due to a King Center official’s barricade at the gravesite, we weren’t allowed. The National Park Service said that would constitute a demonstration. So much for freedom of assembly. Symbols of liberty Americans are hungry to reclaim the symbols of our liberty, hard won by an unlikely group of outnumbered, outgunned, underfunded patriots determined not to live in servitude to the British Empire. If we want to sing the national anthem at a memorial to the man who led this fledgling nation out of slavery, and made my people free, we should be able to send our voices soaring to the heavens. Glenn Beck’s “Rally to Restore Honor” this Saturday will give us that chance, and that’s why I feel it’s important for me to be there. Before the words were out of Mr. Beck’s mouth announcing the Aug. 28 rally, The New York Times noted that it would be at the same place and 47 years to the day since my Uncle Martin gave his “I Have a Dream Speech.” When asked why he chose that date in particular, Beck said he had not realized its significance, but in thinking about it, he saw it is an auspicious day to rally for the honor of the American people. He has said, and he’s right, that Martin Luther King didn’t speak only for African-Americans. He spoke for all Americans, and his words still ring true. Other groups are planning rallies and demonstrations in Washington that day, and freedom of speech gives them the right to do so – and to criticize me for not jumping on their bandwagon. But Uncle Martin’s legacy is big enough to go around. A rally about character, not politics Though critics see it as partisan, Beck’s rally is not a political event, per se. Instead, it is designed to be a refreshing exercise of freedom of speech. The rally will be a celebration of who we are as a nation and a chance to stop for a moment, reflect, reorganize, and re-energize. It’s a chance to think about character; both our character as a nation and our character as individuals. Delineating ourselves as red state or blue, liberal or conservative, minority or majority, we have not quite reached the day when men and women are “judged not by the color of their skin but on the content of their character.” We are still marching toward that day. As Uncle Martin said, “we cannot turn back.” The rally will also give America another chance to honor and thank the men and women in our armed forces for the dangers they face every day in our stead. Unless you have a loved one in Iraq or Afghanistan, it’s too easy to forget that tens of thousands of Americans are far from the comforts of home, are directly in harm’s way, facing an enemy who hates us precisely because we are free. And coming just days before the ninth anniversary of 9/11, the day that roused us from our complacency, we could use another wakeup call, one of our own devising. When I join Beck and all gathered at the Lincoln Memorial this weekend, I will talk about my Uncle Martin and the America he envisioned. I will talk about honor and character and sacrifice. I will be joined by those who represent the diversity of the human race. On Saturday, Uncle Martin’s dream of personhood and human dignity will resound across America. And the Park Police should consider themselves forewarned: As we stand in the symbolic shadow of the great American who signed the Emancipation Proclamation, we just might sing. Dr. Alveda King is the director of African-American outreach for Priests for Life, and the founder of King for America.

One King will be at Glenn Beck’s rally on the Washington Mall tomorrow—pro-life activist Alveda King, niece of the civil rights pioneer. “Americans are hungry to reclaim the symbols of our liberty,” she writes in the Christian Science Monitor. “Glen Beck’s rally … will give us that chance.” She argues that the gathering “is not a political event, per se. Instead, it is designed to be a refreshing exercise of freedom of speech.” King says that the rally will be a chance to reflect on America’s “character as a nation,” and to honor its armed forces. She thinks the event is in keeping with King’s memory, and says she’ll talk about that memory tomorrow—“joined by those who represent the diversity of the human race.” She’s also fine with counter-protesters who disagree. “Uncle Martin’s legacy is big enough to go around.” For one of those dissenting views, check out this essay from someone who was at the original march, or for more on Alveda's background, click here. Both are in Salon.

A man takes a picture of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as she signs copies of her book “Hard Choices” at a Costco store in Arlington, Va., on June 14, 2014. REUTERS Americans think Hillary Clinton is capable of being president, but they’re still not sure whether to trust her. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found 55% of all voters think Mrs. Clinton is “knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency,” but more voters disagree than agree with the statement that she is “honest and straightforward.” The poll results highlight a problem that has dogged Mrs. Clinton since her 2008 campaign. Her three decades in national politics have cemented an image of an experienced public servant with the chops to be president but who has a tougher time making a personal connection with voters and gaining their trust. Today, 38% of voters say she is “honest and straightforward,” compared with 40% who say she isn’t. That figure is better for Mrs. Clinton than in March 2008, during the Democratic primaries, when 33% said she was honest and 43% said she wasn’t. But she may have trouble making up more of that ground as she moves out of her self-imposed break from politics and is increasingly seen as a 2016 presidential candidate. “She’s a mature political figure where people have decided views and it’s not surprising that as she moves from being secretary of State to a candidate, she goes through a different filter in how she’s being viewed,” said pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies, which conducted the poll along with Hart Research Associates. A week into her book tour, Mrs. Clinton has faced criticism that she hasn’t given straight answers. She had to quickly walk back her comment that she and Bill Clinton were “dead broke” when they left the White House in 2001 and struggled when asked when she began favoring gay marriage, during an interview with NPR’s Terry Gross. The good news for Mrs. Clinton is that would-be Democratic voters surveyed in the poll betrayed few qualms about her – making it very difficult for any potential primary opponent to make a case against her. Mrs. Clinton has faced down questions about her ability to reach normal voters before. During the runup to her 2000 Senate campaign in New York, the then-first lady embarked on a “listening tour” across the state during which she was portrayed herself as a sort of everywoman. But replicating that dynamic during the political age of Twitter as the presumptive Democratic nominee would be a tall task. Click to see more June WSJ/NBC poll graphics. She does at least 15 percentage points better among Democrats now than she did in March 2008. Asked whether she is “knowledgeable and experienced” enough, 88% of Democrats say yes, up from 73% six years ago. Four in five Democrats say she understands average people, compared with 64% in 2008. “Never underestimate how incredibly powerful it is to say you’re knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency,” Mr. McInturff said. “To start a race with that is an extraordinary compliment.” The biggest jumps for Mrs. Clinton among Democrats come on the questions of whether she shares positions on issues (a 20 percentage point increase – largely a factor of her vote in favor of the Iraq war fading into memory), whether she is honest and straightforward (a 23 percentage point increase from 2008) and whether she is “easygoing and likable.” Two-thirds of Democrats now say she is likable, up from 45% in 2008, when Mr. Obama famously dubbed her “likable enough” during a New Hampshire primary debate. The poll, conducted June 11 through 15, surveyed 1,000 adults and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points for the full sample. FULL POLL COVERAGE: Poll Shows Erosion in President’s Support The Numbers: Obama’s Job-Approval Rating Takes a Hit Obama Carbon Rule Backed by Most Americans Obama Gets Low Marks for Bergdahl Swap Conservatives Split on Common Core Tea Party Wing Irks Some Republicans Obama’s Competence Questioned Hillary Clinton Faces Trust Deficit With Voters Get more news on Hillary Clinton and the 2016 race, first thing in the morning, by signing up for the Capital Journal Daybreak newsletter: on.wsj.com/CapitalJournalSignup ______________________________________________________ For the latest Washington news, follow @wsjpolitics For outside analysis, follow @wsthinktank Capital Journal Daybreak Newsletter: Sign up to get the latest on politics, policy and defense delivered to your inbox every morning. ||||| Washington (CNN) -- Hillary Clinton did at CNN's town hall meeting on Tuesday what most politicians do: She staked out a position on some issues, catered to her base in others and avoided some questions altogether. There were comments during her hour-long interview with CNN International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour and a studio audience at the Newseum as well as Tumblr that are sure to make the base happy. Those included how far Clinton went to attack pro-gun activists and her states-rights approach to marijuana, which was a departure from her earlier position. Between the answers and dodges, though, Clinton sounded, acted and presented herself very much like a candidate, not solely as a former secretary of state. She was careful, at times, about not going too far on an issue and when asked about forward looking policy questions, she regularly used the word "we." Clinton also entertained questions about 2016. She said she's "not going to be rushed to" decide on whether to run for president and that she was not moving any closer to making a decision. Here are six key moments where citizen Clinton sounded like candidate Clinton. 1. Benghazi: Since leaving the State Department in 2013, the deadly Benghazi terror attack has been the most talked about question around Clinton. Conservatives see it as her biggest weakness, while liberals say it shows how worried the right is about a Clinton presidency. On Tuesday, Clinton said she's "very pleased" that special forces captured Ahmed Abu Khatallah, a militia leader alleged to have been a mastermind of the armed assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound in eastern Libya in September 2012 that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Her comments lined up with much of what she has said previously. She defended the fact that Americans were in Benghazi in the first place but said not everything around what occurred is clear yet. "There are answers, not all of them, not enough, frankly," Clinton said. "I'm still looking for answers, because it was a confusing and difficult time." Asked specifically what she wants to know, Clinton said: "There's a lot we don't know," such as who was behind the attack and what was their motivation. Clinton has long said Benghazi was her biggest regret from her tenure at State and regularly says that the decisions of the day were made "based on imperfect information," and that despite the right intentions come with "unforeseen consequences, unpredictable twists and turns." Clinton's regret at State Asked if she should have ordered Stevens to leave Libya, given that it was the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Clinton said, "If any of us had known, we would have certainly cautioned and maybe even directed people to shelter in place ... and wait to see what was going to happen." 2. Guns, minorities terrorizing majorities: Clinton said on Tuesday that the United States needs to have "a more thoughtful conversation" on guns and blasted gun rights activists. "We cannot let a minority of people -- and that's what it is, it is a minority of people -- hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people," she said. Those comments are the strongest she has made in favor of gun control during her book tour and plant Clinton firmly with those who support tougher restrictions. "We're going to have to do a better job protecting the vast majority of our citizens, including our children, from that very, very, very small group that is unfortunately prone to violence and now with automatic weapons can wreak so much more violence than they ever could have before," Clinton said. Clinton has said during her paid speaking tour over the past six months that the United States needs "to rein in what has become an almost article of faith that anybody can have a gun, anywhere, anytime." In the weeks and months after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Democrats -- led by President Barack Obama -- looked to spearhead efforts to strengthen gun laws and expand background checks of firearm sales. Despite public support for the background check provision, a compromise plan failed to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate in April of last year, and efforts since then have been minimal. CNN Poll: Is Clinton 2016 inevitable? Clinton has backed those efforts and during the town hall, she backed reinstating the ban on assault weapons and banning high-capacity magazines. 3. Deportation: During her book tour, Clinton had come out firmly in support of immigration reform and even bashed its opponents, labeling them as people who "don't seem to understand one of our strongest and most important attributes is that we are still a nation of immigrants." But on Tuesday, Clinton gave an answer that is sure to rile some in her base when she defended Obama's deportation practices. "We have to understand the difficulty that President Obama finds himself in because there are laws that impose certain obligations on him," Clinton said in response to a questioner who called Obama the "deporter-in-chief." But she was pressed by Amanpour about tens of thousands of children fleeing Central American countries and crossing the southern border into the United States. It's become a major problem that some liken to a humanitarian crisis. The Obama administration has stepped up efforts to begin deportation proceedings, and Clinton supports sending them home, if possible. "They should be sent back as soon as it can be determined who responsible adults in their families are, because there are concerns whether all of them should be sent back," Clinton said. "But I think all of them who can be should be reunited with their families." On this problem particularly, Clinton later said, "We have so to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border, that doesn't mean the child gets to stay. So, we don't want to send a message that is contrary to our laws or will encourage more children to make that dangerous journey." 4. Marijuana and another Clinton evolution: While campaigning for president in 2007, Clinton was positively against decriminalizing marijuana. "I don't think we should decriminalize it," Clinton said at the time. "But we ought to do research (into) what, if any, benefits it has." After Tuesday's town hall, it appears Clinton has evolved on the issue, though. "On recreational, you know, states are the laboratories of democracy," Clinton said. "We have at least two states that are experimenting with that right now. I want to wait and see what the evidence is." In 2012, voters in Washington and Colorado passed ballot initiatives that legalized small amounts of marijuana for recreational use. Other states have allowed usage for medical reasons. Clinton said Tuesday that she doesn't think "we've done enough research yet" on medical marijuana questions, but said that "there should be availability (of marijuana) under appropriate circumstances." As for smoking pot herself, Clinton declined. "I didn't do it when I was young. I'm not going to start now," she said with a laugh. Marijuana now joins same-sex marriage as another issue on which Clinton has evolved as the country's opinion has. According to a January CNN/ORC International poll on marijuana, 55% of those questioned nationally said marijuana should be made legal, with 44% disagreeing. In 1987, only 16% of Americans backed legalization. Clinton backed same-sex marriage in 2013, just weeks after leaving the State Department. At that time, public opinion on the issue had began to shift toward allowing same-sex marriage and Clinton adjusted her position after most in her party had. The change seemed to win over some in the crowd, too. "I think she has evolved a lot," said Daniel Cohen of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 5. Breaking with Obama: As Clinton's book was about to hit stores, both Obama and Clinton aides wanted no daylight between the former rivals. The messaging was that Obama's team of rivals was unrivaled during Clinton's four years at State. But at the town hall -- as well as in her book -- Clinton distanced herself from Obama, particularly on the approach to the civil war in Syria. "We pushed very hard," Clinton said about her view that the United States should arm and help rebels that were fighting Syrian government forces. "But as I say in my book, I believe that Harry Truman was right, the buck stops with the president." Clinton added that she told Obama that the United States "should have" armed rebels "you know, two plus years ago." Asked if the White House's decision not to get involved in Syria beyond the limited help that has been given to rebels was a failure, Clinton said she thinks it is "too soon to tell." In the past, though, Clinton has said that the rise of terrorist groups in Syria has allowed for the rise of Islamists in Iraq. While Clinton distanced herself from Obama on Syria, she also pulled herself closer and defended Obama on another issue. 6. Iran, American Jews and politics: Clinton firmly planted herself last week with the White House and those who say the United States should not provide military assistance -- particularly airstrikes -- to the Iraqi government in response to the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and other militants. But the story has already moved. Now Secretary of State John Kerry, Clinton's successor, says the United States could end up cooperating with Iran to stop the militant threat. On Tuesday, she cased doubt on cooperating with Iran in an answer that was as much foreign policy as it was political. "I am not prepared to say that we go in with Iran right now, until we have a better idea what we're getting ourselves into," Clinton said. "What they (Iran) want to do in Baghdad is basically to envelop (Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki) in the Iranian embrace, maybe even use their own troops in Iraq, as they did in Syria. That is a very difficult position to put the United States in." The United States and Iran have held "very brief discussions" about Iraq. A U.S.-Iran partnership would be problematic for Clinton. American Jews already have questions about Clinton's State Department record and her work with Iran. Clinton has touted her ties to Israel and her mistrust of Iran in speeches to Jewish organizations. Opinion: Does Hillary Clinton have to be so boring? ||||| Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L) sits for a live interview with Bret Baier at the FOX News Channel studio in Washington June 17, 2014. WASHINGTON Potential Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton pointed out her differences with President Barack Obama on Tuesday over his decision not to arm moderate Syrian rebels, as neighboring Iraq struggles to cope with extremist spillover from Syria. "We pushed very hard. But as I say in my book, I believe that Harry Truman was right, the buck stops with the president," Clinton said in a CNN interview. The former secretary of state said she, along with the then heads of the Pentagon and CIA tried but failed to persuade Obama to arm the rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but that the White House resisted. Clinton said it was not clear whether arming moderates in Syria would have prevented the rise of the al Qaeda splinter group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which has swept toward Baghdad aiming to build a Muslim caliphate across the Iraqi-Syrian border. "It's very difficult, in retrospect, to say that would have prevented this," she said. She said it is too soon to tell whether American policy in Syria was a failure. The former secretary of state, senator and first lady has been offering views that differ from Obama's on foreign policy in recent months, including on issues such as Iran's nuclear program and dealings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In an interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Clinton also said German Chancellor Angela Merkel had every right to be upset with disclosures that the National Security Agency had listened in on her cellphone as part of its large-scale surveillance of electronic communications in Germany. "It was absolutely uncalled for," Clinton said. "There is work that we need to do with the Germans and inside Germany," she said, recalling that some of the hijackers in the Sept. 11 attacks got part of their training in Hamburg. But Clinton added: "That has nothing has to do with Angela Merkel's cellphone, and that should be off limits." Clinton, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, has said she will not decide before November's congressional elections whether to run for president in 2016, but is regarded by many as the Democratic front-runner. Her CNN interview was organized as part of a tour to promote her newly released book, "Hard Choices." Fox News also asked Clinton about accusations that the Internal Revenue Service targeted the tax status of organizations with names linked to the conservative Tea Party movement and if she agreed with Obama's characterization that it was a "phony scandal." "I think that any time the IRS is involved for many people it's a real scandal," she said. "And I think, though, that there are some challenges that rightly need to be made to what is being said and I assume that the inquiry will continue. "I don't have the details but I think what President Obama means is there was not a lot of evidence that this was deliberate but that's why the investigation needs to continue." (Editing by Jonathan Oatis and Ken Wills)

If Hillary Clinton had had her way, the US would have armed Syrian rebels "two-plus years ago," she says. The former secretary of state told CNN that she, the defense secretary, and the head of the CIA sought to arm moderates, but the president disagreed. "We pushed very hard. But as I say in my book, I believe that Harry Truman was right, the buck stops with the president." Would that have affected the current crisis in Iraq? "It's very difficult, in retrospect, to say that would have prevented this," she noted, per Reuters. As for 2016, Clinton said she wouldn't be "rushed" on deciding whether to run. A new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll notes that 55% of voters see her as "knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency." But while 38% think she's "honest and straightforward," 40% disagree with that statement. Still, says a pollster: "Never underestimate how incredibly powerful it is to say you’re knowledgeable and experienced enough to handle the presidency. To start a race with that is an extraordinary compliment."

Marc Piscotty/Getty Images WARREN, Ohio-Paul Ryan is headed to a Florida retirement community with his mother on Saturday to make his argument about the need to change Medicare for future generations. Ryan's mother is in her late 70s. He'll appear at The Villages, the world's largest retirement community and a conservative stronghold that is a must stop for Republican candidates. In 2008, a massive crowd of between 30,000 and 60,000 seniors came out to a rally Sarah Palin held there. Despite the Republican-leanings it's a clear sign the Romney campaign will continue to stay on the offense on Medicare, but with this trip they may be entering the lion's den. Ryan's mother, who will accompany him, can help her son connect with the senior citizen audience. She lives part of the year in Lauderdale-By-The Sea and part of the year outside of Janesville, Wisconsin. But if addressing a group of Florida seniors on Medicare reform is a challenge for Ryan, even as his drastic changes to the program would alter no benefits for those currently over 55, then Ryan is making his pitch to one of the friendliest lion's dens possible: The Villages is a hotbed of pro-Romney money. Get more pure politics at ABCNews.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com The retirement location itself made a hefty corporate donation to the main super PAC supporting Mitt Romney's presidential bid. The Villages of Lake Sumter, Inc., the Florida retirement community that includes property development, golf and other recreational activities, donated $250,000 to Restore Our Future last June. Five individual residents donated a total of over $678,000 to the group, which also received money from utility, communications, commercial property, and investment companies located in The Villages, Fla. Ryan and Romney continue to hone their Medicare argument. Ryan was asked directly about his criticism of cuts to future Medicare spending in the president's health care plan Thursday and how that squares with his own signature budget plan, which includes those same exact cuts. At a hot dog restaurant here he said because those cuts are already signed into law they are part of the baseline and if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, like the GOP ticket is proposing, that money would come back to Medicare. "First of all, those are in the baseline, he put those cuts in," said Ryan at the Original Hot Dog Shoppe, suggesting that he is simply working with the budget situation handed to him by the president and Democrats. "Second of all, we voted to repeal Obamacare repeatedly, including those cuts. I voted that way before the budget, I voted that way after the budget. So when you repeal all of Obamacare what you end up doing is that repeals that as well. In our budget we've restored a lot of that…We would never have done it in the first place. We voted to repeal the whole bill. I just don't think the president's going to be able to get out of the fact that he took $716 billion from Medicare to pay for Obamacare." At a Catholic college Thursday morning Ryan repeated that the Medicare debate is one "we need to have" and one "we are going to win," before laying into Obama over these same cuts. "What he probably did not mention yesterday is that when he passed his signature health care achievement Obamacare he raided 716 billion dollars from Medicare to pay for Obamacare," Ryan said at Walsh University. "This will lead to fewer services for seniors. President Obama's campaign calls this an achievement. You think raiding Medicare to pay for Obamacare? Neither do I." He added that the Romney ticket will "protect and strengthen Medicare, leave it in tact for our current seniors and save it for the next generation." Ryan's plan would replace Medicare with a voucher program. In his plan Medicare would cease to pay for health services directly, instead operating as a board that approves a menu of health plans for public sale and doles out predetermined lumps of money to people enrolled in Medicare, to help them buy those plans. This could cost seniors thousands of dollars more each year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Ryan endorsed the same exact cuts in his plan, the same plan Romney has said he would sign if he became president. The cuts do not affect benefits for seniors or the elderly. Instead, they reduce provider reimbursements and curb waste, fraud and abuse. In an interview with ABC News Green Bay, Wisconsin affiliate, WBAY, Wednesday Romney said his "plan for Medicare is the same, if not identical, it's probably close to identical" to Ryan's signature plan. ABC News' Chris Good contributed to this report. ||||| "Throughout his life, Mitt Romney has made great decisions, and choosing Paul Ryan as his running mate is a truly inspired choice. I got to know Paul during my Senate campaign when he endorsed me early on when I was still considered a long shot. Paul Ryan is a courageous reformer who understands our nation's challenges, has proposed bold policy solutions to solve them, and has shown the courage to stand up to President Obama and other Washington politicians trying to tear him down. "The Romney-Ryan ticket is going to win in November because it offers the American people visionary leadership to recapture the free enterprise spirit that has empowered countless Americans to build businesses from scratch and live the American dream. I'm excited about the visionary change a Romney-Ryan team will bring to Washington, and I look forward to campaigning "Mitt Romney has made a great choice in Paul Ryan. He is an accomplished public servant and a leading voice on the most pressing issues facing our country. Paul is one of my best friends in Congress and someone I have worked closely with as a former colleague on the House Ways & Means Committee. "Jane and I wish Paul and Janna and their kids the very best. As the Chairman of the Romney campaign in Ohio, I look forward to working with Paul to ensure that the Romney-Ryan ticket carries Ohio and is victorious in November. Most importantly, as a member of the Senate, I look forward to working closely with a Romney-Ryan Administration to restore fiscal sanity and enact pro-growth policies to create jobs." "In naming Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has chosen a leader of the House Republicans who shares his commitment to the flawed theory that new budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy, while placing greater burdens on the middle class and seniors, will somehow deliver a stronger economy. The architect of the radical Republican House budget, Ryan, like Romney, proposed an additional $250,000 tax cut for millionaires, and deep cuts in education from Head Start to college aid. His plan also would end Medicare as we know it by turning it into a voucher system, shifting thousands of dollars in health care costs to seniors. As a member of Congress, Ryan rubber-stamped the reckless Bush economic policies that exploded our deficit and crashed our economy. Now the Romney-Ryan ticket would take us back by repeating the same, catastrophic mistakes." The Progressive Change Campaign Committee issued the following statement: "Paul Ryan is a right-wing extremist who wants to end Medicare. This is a major unforced error by Mitt Romney. It gives President Obama and Democrats a chance to draw a clear contrast in 2012 by promising not to cut one penny from Medicare or Social Security benefits. If Democrats win in a landslide, this was the game changer." -- Adam Green, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a 1 million member grassroots organization The national pro-life organization released the following statement: "By selecting Congressman Ryan as his vice presidential running mate, Governor Romney demonstrates his commitment to protecting American women and unborn children," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of SBA List. "A longtime pro-life advocate and a strong fiscal conservative, Congressman Ryan has insisted that there can be no 'truce' when it comes to advancing the rights of the unborn and achieving fiscal responsibility. He has a pristine pro-life voting record and will be an asset to Governor Romney's campaign. "Pro-life voters are a key demographic and help secure victory in critical elections," continued Dannenfelser. "The addition of a second strong pro-life leader to the ticket energizes the pro-life base - we are thrilled with this pick." "The selection of Paul Ryan is a bold and inspired pick," said Jimmy LaSalvia, Executive Director of GOProud. "Paul Ryan has been the architect of policies that would benefit all Americans, especially gay Americans." "Paul Ryan is one of the few political leaders anywhere in the country willing to tell the American people the truth about the unprecedented budget crisis we are facing, and - more importantly - willing to put forward bold plans to put this country back on the road to fiscal solvency," continued LaSalvia. "Congressman Paul Ryan is a strong choice for vice president, and his addition to the GOP ticket will help Republican candidates up and down the ballot," said R. Clarke Cooper, Log Cabin Republicans Executive Director. "As chairman of the House Budget Committee and author of the Republican "path to prosperity" that provided the blueprint for serious spending cuts in this Congress, nobody is more qualified to articulate a conservative economic vision to restore the American economy and stimulate job creation. "Just like Sen. John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin and George H.W. Bush's selection of Dan Quayle, Mitt Romney has been cowed by the right wing into choosing an extreme vice presidential nominee who will alienate moderate voters. It's now clearer than ever that as president, Mitt Romney would end Medicare as we know it, and will raise taxes on middle class families by more than $2,000in order to slash taxes on the wealthiest Americans. While there is a lot that can be said about Paul Ryan's extreme views, more important is what this choice says about Mitt Romney: that he is unwilling or unable to stand up to the far-right of his party and select a vice-presidential candidate that is both able to be president on day one and capable of governing by reaching across the aisle." "If there were ever any doubt that Mitt Romney is not on the side of working people, today's choice of Rep. Paul Ryan as a running mate makes it crystal clear. With this choice, Romney has shown the American people that he believes Rep. Ryan's extremist, irresponsible and anti-worker agenda is what's right for our country. "Rep. Ryan has made a name for himself by fighting in the halls of Congress for tax giveaways for the wealthy and big corporations while proposing to gut vital services like Medicare and education, and eliminating any sense of retirement security for working families. His no-holds barred record of attacking seniors, children, and working men and women is frightening for the 99 percent of Americans who are not rich -- but for Mitt Romney it was a calling card to choose him as a running mate." "Mitt Romney's choice of Rep. Ryan as his running mate reminds us of why elections matter when it comes to our ability to make personal and private medical decisions," Keenan continued. "The outcome of the 2012 presidential election very well could determine whether abortion remains legal and accessible for the next generation of American women. Romney has pledged that taking away women's rights will be a priority for him and his choice of Ryan amplifies that promise to the extreme anti-choice backers of this ticket. My organization's priority is to make sure President Obama remains in the White House." "Americans deserve new ideas for how we can reduce the debt and protect our seniors and the middle class. Just one year ago, Western New York voters rejected the Ryan-Collins policies that would end Medicare as we know it and hurt middle class families while giving more tax cuts to the rich. Our country needs to move forward, not re-hash failed ideas. Given Chris Collins' ongoing support for tax cuts for the rich that add nearly $1 trillion to the deficit and his willingness to send his business to China to line his pockets, it is clear my opponent is going to continue to pursue policies and priorities that have already been rejected." "Now that Paul Ryan's personal ambition has clearly trumped his interest in the First District, I have no doubt he'll find himself out of a job come November. Once Wisconsinites and voters across our country learn the truth about Ryan's radical plot to end Medicare as we know it, de-fund women's health care, and preserve tax breaks for millionaires, they'll vote against him not just once, but twice. In the coming weeks, our campaign will work with President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden to continue getting the word out on Ryan's indefensible record, and building momentum to ensure victory on Election Day." "Governor Mitt Romney made a bold and reform-minded selection in Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. This election has to be about who is going to look out for the next generation. America needs a comeback team to turn around the economy and to turn around the fiscal status of our country. Romney and Ryan have the ideas and the experience needed to take on these core issues. This is a great day for Wisconsin and an even greater day for America." WE now officially have a Dream Team of solutions: Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan! Both of these men understand its not about complaining and blaming, but producing results for the people of our great country. The race is on: Romney/Ryan vs Obama/Biden. "Paul is a good friend and one of the smartest guys I served with in Congress. He has the courage of his convictions, which is what our nation needs." "By picking Representative Paul Ryan, Governor Romney has doubled down on his commitment to gut Social Security and end Medicare as we know it. Romney's choice demonstrates that catering to the Tea Party and the far-right is more important to him that standing up for the middle class. "The months ahead will provide Americans with a clear choice between the Romney-Ryan plan to gut Social Security and Medicare, and Democrats' balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines smart spending cuts with asking millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share. Democrats in the Senate look forward to engaging in that debate." "Today, Mitt Romney named Congressman Paul Ryan as his pick for Vice President. Congressman Ryan has been called a serious person, but he, like Mitt Romney has seriously flawed ideas for our economy that have only failed us in the past. "Congressman Ryan laid the groundwork in Congress for Mitt Romney's budget-busting scheme that gives an additional $250,000 tax cut for millionaires while punishing middle-class families with tax hikes of up to $2,000 a year. This tried and failed trickle-down economics scheme is familiar and troubling: cuts to education and other job creating initiatives, ending Medicare as we know it and saddling our seniors with the bill all to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. And I can say with no doubt, middle class families and seniors in my home state of Florida want no part of a Romney-Ryan economic scheme that puts millionaires ahead of Medicare and throws the middle class under the bus to give more tax breaks to the wealthy. "The American middle-class and our seniors cannot afford to go back to the failed policies of the past, and it is unconscionable to ask them to foot the bill for the Romney-Ryan scheme. A Romney-Ryan ticket is sure to take us back and repeat the same catastrophic mistakes that got us into the mess we found ourselves in in the first place." "There is no question that former Governor Romney now owns the Republican, Ryan budget that puts millionaires ahead of Medicare and the middle class. Congressman Paul Ryan led House Republicans in voting to end the Medicare guarantee, which increases costs on seniors and weakens America's great middle class in order to give tax breaks to millionaires, Big Oil and corporations that ship jobs overseas. "As Democrats, we will always preserve Medicare, strengthen the middle class and work to reignite the American Dream by building ladders of opportunity for all those who work hard and play by the rules. The choice Americans are facing could not be more clear." "Paul Ryan is a reformer and a proven leader who will be a great partner to Governor Romney in his efforts to get our country, and our economy, back on track. At a time when millions of Americans are still looking at President Obama's policies and asking 'where are the jobs?' Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney will focus on common sense solutions to stop Washington from spending money it doesn't have and get the federal government out of the way of small business job creators. "I'm proud to call Paul Ryan a friend, and I will do everything in my power to make sure that he and Mitt Romney - along with our entire Republican ticket - are well positioned to win in November." "This is a strong pick. Governor Romney is serious about confronting the long-term challenges facing America, and Paul Ryan will help him solve the difficult issues that must be addressed for future generations." "The choice of Paul Ryan is an outright attack on middle class Americans. While Mitt Romney wants to raise taxes on the middle class in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy, Paul Ryan has sought for years to end Medicare as we know it. It's a one-two assault on the middle class that will close down opportunities for future generations and snatch away retirement security that people worked all their lives to build." "Romney and Ryan are the 1% Dream Team. Rep. Paul Ryan is an extremist ideologue who wants to end Medicare, radically redistribute wealth to the top 1%, and throw America's middle class under the bus. Ryan's proposed budget would cost America more than a million jobs in less than one year. Like Romney, Ryan believes the poor and middle class should pay more so the rich can get richer. Romney's choice of Ryan is sure to energize MoveOn's more than 7 million members as we work to ensure voters know the truth about Romney and Ryan's extreme plans to demolish Medicare, raise middle class taxes to fund tax cuts for billionaires, and destroy jobs." "I believe that by choosing my good friend Paul Ryan as his running mate, Mitt Romney has once again shown why he possesses the leadership and vision to get this country back on the right path. Paul has dedicated his career to promoting ideas of economic growth and fiscal responsibility. I am confident that a Romney-Ryan ticket will not only energize our party, but will energize our nation as well, further drawing a distinction between President Obama's failed record on jobs and the Romney-Ryan record of solutions. The Obama Administration has relentlessly advanced policies that have deepened our economic malaise, causing many Americans to question whether their children will have the same opportunities for success that past generations had. Under the leadership of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, I believe we can restore the American dream and create a brighter tomorrow." "Paul Ryan is a tremendous choice to serve as the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States. In selecting a bold, innovative thinker, Mitt Romney has ensured that his campaign--and ultimately his administration--will be led by individuals with courage, determination, judgment, and wisdom. With this great announcement, America is on its way back. The Romney-Ryan team will get our fiscal house in order, our economy back on track and Americans back to work." "Gov. Romney showed today that he is determined to confront a host of growing crises that President Obama has ignored. Where the current President has simply refused to act, Gov. Romney has now pledged to lead. Paul Ryan is an excellent choice, and a confirmation that Gov. Romney is serious about strengthening America's economic future, tackling the deficits and debt that have skyrocketed under President Obama, and returning to a path to solvency and security. "Americans are looking for leadership that has been lacking on the most critical issues facing our country's economic future. The Romney-Ryan team can return much-needed leadership from day one and help bring real recovery to our economy, reverse the damage of the Obama economy, and take a serious approach to the Obama debt and focus on growing jobs--not the size of the government. "President Obama's term has been marked by overwhelming national debt, a first-ever downgrade of America's credit rating, high unemployment and a disappointing lack of leadership when it comes to addressing spending. It's time to change that, and Gov. Romney and Chairman Ryan will be ready on day one to give America the leadership it deserves." "Mitt Romney conceded with the selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running mate that this fall's election is not a referendum on President Obama. Instead, Romney cemented the fact that this presidential election is a clear choice between two vastly different visions for America's future. On one hand, the Obama/Biden ticket wants to strengthen the middle class and restore prosperity for all Americans. On the other, the Romney/Ryan ticket stands for creating more wealth for those who need it least and telling the rest of America, 'You're on your own.' "Rep. Ryan's record speaks for itself. He would reduce, not expand, real opportunities for all students to have access to high-quality public education. He would repeal the healthcare reform law that is helping millions of Americans gain access to the medical care they need. And he is the architect of the radical Republican budget scheme that would end Medicare as we know it. "Romney's selection of Rep. Ryan is a clear signal that the Republican ticket doesn't understand the needs and challenges Americans are facing right now. Not only is Romney on the wrong side of issues affecting the middle class, but now he's assembled what may be the most out-of-touch ticket in decades. The Romney/Ryan ticket is the wrong choice for hardworking middle-class Americans, working families and the future of our great nation." "Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee and author of the radical Republican House budget, should surprise no one. The two share an extreme ideology and commitment to slashing taxes for millionaires and billionaires, while harming middle-class families and seniors. The Ryan budget, which Romney has endorsed repeatedly, would cut education funding from pre-kindergarten to college and cost the U.S. more than 1 million jobs. In addition, Ryan has advocated for ending Medicare as we know it and privatizing Social Security, making seniors pay thousands more for health care and making their retirement less secure at the same time. "While Ryan voted in favor of the auto rescue legislation, when asked later on Fox News if the federal government should have 'bailed out the auto company,' Ryan said, 'No.' Now the Republican Party has presidential and vice presidential nominees that, if they had their druthers, would have allowed the American auto industry to die and with it hundreds of thousands of jobs." "Congratulations to Paul and Janna Ryan. I know Wisconsin takes pride that one of our own has been chosen for a place on the national ticket. Paul and I went to Congress together in 1998; I consider him a friend. We have always managed to disagree without being disagreeable. We have both dedicated our lives to public service, but I am committed to building a much different road to the future. I believe that the wealthy needs to pay their fair share and that the middle class needs to get a fair shot at the American dream. Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and all my opponents in the Senate race believe that we can move our economy forward by looking to the policies of the past that failed and got us into our fiscal mess in the first place. They all support providing budget busting tax cuts to millionaires and paying for them by increasing out of pocket health care costs for seniors, increasing the cost of higher education for students and their families, and ending Medicare as we know it for future generations. I believe that path is wrong for Wisconsin, wrong for our nation, and that we need to do what's right for the middle class." "Paul Ryan voted against the DREAM Act in 2010 and voted for the infamous Sensenbrenner bill in 2005, which would have turned undocumented workers and anyone who helped them - including their priests and pastors - into felons. On the campaign trail this year, Ryan attacked President Obama for not passing the very type of immigration reform that all Republicans opposed. Ryan's opposition to the DREAM Act and immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship is especially curious given his reputation for fiscal discipline - and the array of projections from CBO and other independent analysts showing that the DREAM Act and comprehensive reform would be an economic and fiscal boon to the nation. "While Ryan's selection was far from a Romney attempt to improve the Republicans' standing with Latino voters, we can nonetheless expect to hear spin that Latino voters will respond to Ryan's small government agenda and the tenets of the Ryan budget. Yet in theOctober 2011 impreMedia/Latino Decisions tracking poll of Latino voters, by a 73%-22% margin, Latino voters opposed cutting spending on Medicare. "For those holding out hope that the VP selection would represent an indication that Romney and the Republicans are ready to start improving their immigration stance - and to start repairing their brand image among Latino voters in the process - today's selection of Paul Ryan is a troubling reinforcement of the Republican immigration status quo." "WE now officially have a Dream Team of solutions: Mitt Romney/Paul Ryan! Both of these men understand its not about complaining and blaming, but producing results for the people of our great country. The race is on: Romney/Ryan vs Obama/Biden." "I congratulate Chairman Ryan on the honor of being chosen as Gov. Romney's running mate. He and I have served together in Congress for several years, and I know he cares deeply about putting America back on a sustainable fiscal path, just as President Obama and Vice President Biden do. "However, I believe his ideas of how to do so are simply wrong for our country and will not, in fact, bring us to a solid financial footing. "Chairman Ryan's selection will make this year's presidential race an even clearer choice for voters. By placing Chairman Ryan on his ticket, Gov. Romney is making the centerpiece of his campaign the two Ryan-designed, tea-party inspired, disastrous budgets the House passed this Congress. They would end Medicare as we know it. They would ask less from those who have more and more from those who have less. Those budgets further shift the burden of deficit reduction onto the vulnerable and middle class alone, and slash funding for critical programs. "Gov. Romney's choice also represents an embrace of House Republicans' strategy of delaying action on our most pressing national challenges. We saw that when Chairman Ryan, and the two other House Republicans on the Bowles-Simpson Commission, walked away from a balanced, bi-partisan solution and voted no on the Bowles-Simpson plan. "As Americans prepare to cast their ballots this November, the priorities of Gov. Romney and Chairman Ryan are clear. At every turn, they have opted to protect the wealthiest at the expense of the middle class, while Democrats continue to propose solutions for creating jobs, putting our nation on a balanced, responsible path to reducing the deficit, and ensuring that all of our people can pursue the American Dream." "Paul Ryan is a bold and inspiring choice as Governor Romney's running mate. Congressman Ryan shares the belief that American leadership is vital to a more peaceful and prosperous world. He will help to restore America at home so that we can lead again because he understands that America is an exceptional and indispensable nation on the world stage." "For years now, America's working families have been getting hammered, and Mitt Romney just picked up a bigger hammer. The Ryan Budget is a plan to hit families, seniors, our kids harder--all so that millionaires and billionaires can get more tax breaks. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are a demolition team that will wreck our economy and leave working people and small businesses to struggle in the mess. "The choice is clear. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will work to make the rich and powerful, richer and more powerful. I'm standing with President Obama to work for our families, to invest in our kids, and to give our small businesses a fighting chance to succeed because I believe that's how we build a strong foundation for our future." "In Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney has chosen a champion of fiscal sanity and a formidable advocate for policies that will get our country back on the right path. When it comes to the federal budget, we can't afford four more years of reckless, runaway spending. As the next President and Vice President of the United States, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will lead an administration that finally brings fiscal responsibility back to Washington." "Governor Romney has made a fantastic choice in selecting Paul Ryan to be our nominee for Vice President. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will put America back on a path to prosperity by reforming government, enacting real deficit reduction, and overhauling the tax code to spur economic growth. America needs a Romney-Ryan administration to get our fiscal house in order and put Americans back to work."

A new ad from the Obama campaign slams his opponents on Medicare—but it barely mentions Mitt Romney. The ad, called "Facts," defends the president against Team Romney's claims that ObamaCare guts the program to the tune of $700 billion. Meanwhile, it attacks the GOP vision for Medicare, slamming Paul Ryan by name for his voucher-based proposal (and referencing Romney only in the first sentence), the Huffington Post notes. For his part, Ryan will be pushing his own ideas about Medicare reform in Florida tomorrow, visiting the biggest retirement community in the world—joined by his mother, ABC News reports.

Oklahoma's death chamber. In April, when Oklahoma tried to execute Clayton Lockett, everything went wrong. The execution team spent more than an hour trying to find a useable vein. And after officials administered drugs that should have rendered him unconscious, he raised his head, writhed on the gurney and mumbled, appearing to be in pain. The proceeding was eventually halted, but Lockett reportedly died of a heart attack a few minutes later. Corrections officials insisted at the time that Lockett's vein had "blown" or ruptured, causing the drugs to leak into surrounding tissue rather than into his blood stream. Now preliminary findings from an independent autopsy of Lockett suggest an unsettling explanation of what really happened: The people charged with carrying out the execution had absolutely no clue what they were doing. Oklahoma officials initially claimed that Lockett's executioners had been forced to insert an IV line into the inmate's femoral vein—a painful place for the insertion and also a risky one that requires serious medical expertise—after running into difficulty finding another suitable vein. They also suggested that dehydration or another medical condition might have led to Lockett's botched execution. Lockett's lawyers retained a medical examiner, who performed an autopsy on the prisoner. Dr. Joseph Cohen's findings, which were released today, raise serious questions about the official account. The autopsy indicates that Lockett's vein never blew—because the IV was never inserted there in the first place. Instead, the needle punctured the vein. Cohen also determined that there was nothing wrong with the veins in Lockett's arms that would have justified using a femoral vein, nor was he dehydrated. Yet he found "skin punctures on the extremities and right and left femoral areas," and proof that the execution team had tried to set lines in both of Lockett's arms and both sides of his groin. Cohen also found more evidence of inept handiwork in hemorrhages around the places the team had tried to access a vein, as well as other injuries related to "failed vascular catheter access." As with other botched lethal injection executions, the autopsy provides compelling evidence that the people handling what is supposed to be a medical procedure, albeit a gruesome one, have little or no medical training. Oklahoma corrections officials, as well as the governor, said athat a phlebotomist had inserted Lockett's IV. Phlebotomists are fairly low-level health care workers whose primary training and work involves drawing blood for testing. Leaving aside the fact that, in Oklahoma, phlebotomists aren't licensed, regulated, or trained in inserting catheters or IVs, the state's own protocols require a paramedic or EMT to inert an IV. After the Tulsa World started asking about this discrepancy, the state changed its position and claimed that the work had been done by an EMT. State law makes this almost impossible to verify, shrouding the identities of execution team members in secrecy. Executioner jobs don't necessarily attract the best and brightest. The oath doctors take to "first do no harm" renders them ethically prohibited from participating in executions, so often the people who carry out lethal injections are just ordinary prison officials or, in some cases, employees with checkered pasts. In Arizona, for instance, where execution team members are supposed to receive background checks, one of the primary execution team members had a criminal record, including arrests for drunk driving and drinking in public. Even when doctors participate, they're not always at the top of their profession. In Missouri, dyslexic surgeon Dr. Alan Doerhoff, who admitted to improvising drug mixtures, oversaw 54 executions before a judge banned him from performing any more. Doerhoff was the subject of more than 20 malpractice lawsuits during his career, and he was disciplined by the state medical board for concealing lawsuits from a hospital where he worked. Two Missouri hospitals banned him from practicing in their facilities. Cohen is still seeking more information from Oklahoma about its procedures, test results from the coroner's office, and other details about the day Lockett died. Corrections officials tasered Lockett in the process of removing him from his cell to take him to the death chamber, and Cohen is seeking more information about that, too, due to other injuries he found on Lockett's body. In a statement, Dr. Mark Heath, an assistant professor of anesthesiology at Columbia University and an expert in lethal injection executions who has been aiding defense lawyers challenging state protocols, explained, "Dr. Cohen has begun a critically important inquiry into the botched execution of Clayton Lockett. However, to complete this inquiry, Dr. Cohen will need the state to provide extensive additional information beyond what the body itself revealed. I hope that Oklahoma provides everything he asks for so that we can all understand what went so terribly wrong in Mr. Lockett’s execution." ||||| Oklahoma prison officials failed to properly place IVs in Clayton Lockett’s veins after numerous attempts, according to preliminary autopsy findings released Friday. The death row inmate’s execution made national headlines and became a rallying cry for death penalty opponents. While many of lethal injection’s problems have focused on the drugs being used, it appears that Lockett’s execution went awry due to the actual administration of those drugs. The autopsy found that Lockett’s arms and thighs showed evidence of skin and needle punctures. IVs are typically administered through the arms, but according to the autopsy, Oklahoma’s executioners appear to have failed in accessing his veins and as an alternative attempted to deliver the fatal drugs through his femoral arteries, located in the thighs. The autopsy found that Lockett’s veins were not damaged prior to the execution and stated that there was “excellent integrity of peripheral and deep veins for the purpose of achieving venous access.” There was also evidence of “vascular injury indicative of failed vascular catheter access,” meaning the executioners actually damaged Lockett’s veins during the attempted execution. The drugs likely leaked into his surrounding tissues rather than going directly into his bloodstream, causing a much more prolonged death. Lockett’s execution lasted 45 minutes. The postmortem was conducted after Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin called for an investigation into the April 29 execution. President Obama asked the U.S. attorney general to look into the problems surrounding lethal injection following Lockett’s death as well. A series of lawsuits around the country have challenged lethal injection methods based on the drugs’ origins, which are often kept secret. Many states have had trouble obtaining execution drugs lately and have turned to new mixtures which are loosely regulated and not overseen by the federal government. But the Lockett execution may put more of a spotlight on the actual training of executioners, which is also a concern for many who challenge lethal injection’s constitutionality. The amount and quality of training which executioners receive is often unclear. The preliminary autopsy findings did not confirm whether Lockett died of a heart attack, which state officials claimed at the time. A full report is due within the next few weeks. ||||| OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — The team responsible for executing an Oklahoma inmate failed multiple times to insert an intravenous line into his body to deliver lethal drugs, even though the man's veins were in good condition, according to a private autopsy released Friday by attorneys for Oklahoma death row prisoners. FILE - In this June 29, 2011 file photo provided by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections is Clayton Lockett. Lockett, who died following a botched execution, had healthy veins but his body had numerous... (Associated Press) After the botched execution of Clayton Lockett, prison officials had said an IV specialist was unable to find suitable veins on his arms, legs or feet. Oklahoma executions typically involve IVs inserted into both arms. A doctor overseeing the April 29 execution suggested tapping a vein in Lockett's groin area, and said Lockett did not receive a full dose of the three lethal drugs after his vein collapsed. But forensic pathologist Dr. Joseph Cohen said his preliminary findings indicate that Lockett had healthy veins, and it appears the execution team tried repeatedly to insert an intravenous line without success, including into deep veins on both sides of Lockett's groin. Cohen cited the "excellent integrity of peripheral and deep veins for the purpose of achieving venous access." He also said Lockett's body had numerous puncture wounds from multiple attempts to tap them and he found signs of "failed vascular catheter access." He said more information was needed to determine why Lockett died. Prison officials have said he died of an apparent heart attack. Results from the initial state autopsy are still pending, however, and toxicology reports haven't been released — so it's unclear how much of the drugs Lockett received. Prison officials have not said who inserted the IV, and state law allows the identities of the doctor and the IV expert to remain secret. Oklahoma prisons spokesman Jerry Massie said Friday the IV specialist was a certified emergency medical technician, but declined further comment until an investigation into the botched execution is completed by the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety. Oklahoma was using the three-drug method for the first time. After being declared unconscious by the doctor inside the death chamber, Lockett writhed on the gurney, moaned and attempted to lift his head for several minutes after the second and third drugs were administered. After checking the IV, the doctor reported the drugs had either absorbed into Lockett's tissue or leaked out of his body. Without a spare dose of lethal drugs, Oklahoma's prisons director halted the execution, but Lockett was pronounced dead anyway about 43 minutes after the execution began. Cohen said he could not address whether Lockett died of a heart attack. Lockett's heart and larynx were kept by the Dallas County Medical Examiner's Office, which conducted the first autopsy on Lockett at the request of Oklahoma officials. The Texas autopsy was part of an investigation ordered by Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin into Lockett's death. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has issued a six-month stay of execution for a second inmate who was scheduled to die on the same night as Lockett. A spokesman for Fallin said he hadn't seen Cohen's report, but that it seemed to support the initial findings released by the Department of Corrections after Lockett's execution. "It appears to reinforce what we already know, which is that there was a problem inserting the IV," said Fallin spokesman Alex Weintz. Lockett, a four-time felon, was convicted of shooting 19-year-old Stephanie Nieman with a sawed-off shotgun and watching as two accomplices buried her alive in rural Kay County in 1999 after Nieman and a friend arrived at a home the men were robbing. ||||| Photo Advertisement Continue reading the main story Oklahoma executioners failed to place an injection line properly in a vein in the groin of Clayton D. Lockett, according to an independent autopsy commissioned by Mr. Lockett’s defense lawyers after his bungled execution drew wide attention to the problems of lethal injection. The finding, released Friday, may explain why Mr. Lockett was not completely sedated, then writhed and moaned in apparent agony before dying of heart failure 43 minutes after the procedure began. The finding contradicts the claim by Oklahoma prison officials that Mr. Lockett’s vein had collapsed or “blown,” as one described it. Instead, the new report indicates that Mr. Lockett’s femoral vein, located deep below the surface of the groin, was punctured by inexpert probing and that the execution drugs were not pumped directly into the bloodstream. The state commissioned an autopsy, sending Mr. Lockett’s body to the Southwestern Institute of Forensic Sciences in Dallas for examination, but the results have not been released. Gov. Mary Fallin also asked the chief of public safety to conduct a broad review of what went wrong on April 29 and whether execution procedures should be overhauled. A spokesman for Ms. Fallin, Alex Weintz, said that the official review continued and that while officials had not seen the independent autopsy report, “it seems to verify what we already knew — there was a problem administering the IV.” In their initial public accounts, Oklahoma officials described a hectic scene at the state prison’s execution chamber. A medication technician spent nearly an hour trying, without success, to place a catheter in Mr. Lockett’s arms and legs or feet. Then, on the advice of an attending physician whose precise role remains unclear, the team sought to insert the needle through the groin into a femoral vein — a far more difficult and painful procedure, often done in hospitals with the aid of an ultrasound machine, since the vein is not otherwise visible. The team apparently believed that it had succeeded in placing the line. But from the beginning, things did not proceed normally. According to witnesses, Mr. Lockett was unusually slow to become unconscious after injection of a sedative, the first in a three-drug combination that was being tried in Oklahoma for the first time. Once the attending physician declared Mr. Lockett unconscious, officials injected a paralyzing agent and a drug intended to stop his heart, but he appeared to wake up, witnesses said, and bucked against his restraints and mumbled before prison officials drew the curtain on the witnesses. Failure of the intravenous line is consistent with the observed events, medical specialists said, and also suggests the possibility of suffering. With a catheter deep in the groin, but not feeding into an intact vein, the drugs would have spread through local tissue and been only partially absorbed into the bloodstream. Thus it appears that Mr. Lockett was not completely sedated and then partially paralyzed before receiving an incomplete dose of the painful heart-stopping agent, potassium chloride. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story The independent autopsy was performed by Dr. Joseph I. Cohen, a forensic pathologist based in Novato, Calif., who was formerly chief forensic pathologist for Riverside County, Calif., and now runs an independent consulting firm, United Forensic Services. He saw the body in Tulsa on May 14, after the state-sponsored examination was completed in Dallas. In the preliminary report, Dr. Cohen wrote that the presence of skin punctures revealed multiple efforts to place needles in the veins of Mr. Lockett’s extremities and both sides of his groin. He found, he wrote, “the presence of vascular injury indicative of failed vascular catheter access.” The planned executions on April 29 of Mr. Lockett and another prisoner, Charles F. Warner, who has not yet been executed, had already been the subject of intense legal and news media scrutiny because the state was using a new drug combination and refused to divulge the manufacturers. But the sequence of events that night, and Friday’s report, suggest that failed placement of the intravenous line, not the quality of the drugs, was the immediate problem. According to state rules, the names of the medication technician and doctor involved are kept secret. “Initial results of Clayton Lockett’s autopsy indicate extraordinary incompetence on the part of the execution team that was separate and apart from the drugs used,” Deborah Denno, a law professor at Fordham University and death penalty opponent, said Friday in a statement. Mr. Lockett was condemned for the murder of a 19-year-old woman whom he was convicted of shooting and burying alive. The execution of Mr. Warner, convicted of the rape and murder of an 11-month-old girl, has been delayed indefinitely while the state investigates what went wrong and whether it should change its procedures.

After the botched execution of Clayton Lockett, Oklahoma officials said that he hadn't received the proper doses of lethal drugs because a vein collapsed. But an independent autopsy contradicts that conclusion, reports the New York Times. The problem wasn't with Lockett's veins—in fact, they were found to be healthy—but instead with the medical team trying to insert an IV line. After repeated failed attempts to insert it into his arms, legs, and feet, a supervising doctor ordered the line to be placed in his femoral vein, located in the groin. That's a tricky procedure requiring "serious medical expertise," explains Mother Jones, and it seems the team didn't pull it off correctly. The autopsy suggests that the catheter punctured the vein and never adequately delivered the drugs. They "likely leaked into his surrounding tissues rather than going directly into his bloodstream, causing a much more prolonged death," writes Time. When it was clear that Lockett wasn't being property sedated, officials stopped the procedure, but Lockett died about 45 minutes later of what Oklahoma officials call a heart attack. The autopsy didn't weigh in on his cause of death, reports AP. An official state review into the matter is still underway.

Under the authority of the Arms Export Control Act, the State Department controls the export and temporary import of defense articles and services. The State Department’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations explain specific licensing procedures. Companies that manufacture or export defense articles or provide defense services are required to register with the licensing office. Exporters must obtain a license to export defense articles or an agreement to export defense services. Exporters file license applications either electronically or in paper copy. Currently, 50 percent of applications are submitted electronically. For both electronic and paper copy applications, the State Department requires seven paper copies of supporting documentation, including brochures and technical data. The supporting documentation for one application can be several inches thick and occasionally much thicker. Applications are assigned a number and logged into the licensing office’s database. Applications are distributed to licensing officers for initial review according to munitions categories, for example, firearms, aircraft, ammunition, and spacecraft systems. The names of the parties involved in an application are automatically screened by the database against a watch list of parties about whom prior concerns have been raised to determine if more intensive reviews are necessary. Figure 1 shows the key phases of the license application review process. During the initial review, a licensing officer decides if there is enough information to make a decision. If there is, the officer makes a decision and takes final action on the application. If a licensing officer decides additional review is needed, the officer then decides which organizations, such as the Defense Department or other State Department offices, should conduct a further review. The Defense Department conducts a technical review, identifies national security concerns, and also identifies whether an application needs to be reviewed for Missile Technology Control Regime concerns. State Department offices review applications for foreign policy, human rights, and non-proliferation concerns. After deciding which offices need to review the application, the licensing officer forwards the application to administrative personnel who transmit the application package to the other agencies and offices. This referral process is not automated and relies on the physical distribution of paper documents via couriers to other agencies and inter-office mail to State Department offices. In fiscal year 2000, the licensing office made 28,496 referrals for 15,512 license applications (about one-third of all applications) to other agencies and State Department offices. The average processing time for these referred applications was 91 days. For the 66 percent of applications that were not referred to other agencies, the average processing time was 23 days. While applications are undergoing review outside the licensing office, administrative assistants maintain the application, answer calls from license applicants concerning the status of reviews, record agencies recommendations as they are received from reviewing agencies and offices, and attach the recommendations to the paper copy files of the applications. Once all recommendations have been received for an application, the assistants close the referral process and submit the application to the licensing officer for final review and action. Under the Arms Export Control Act, the State Department is also required to notify Congress before approving applications that involve significant military equipment exports of defense articles and services valued over $50 million, or exports of major defense equipment valued over $14 million. The State Department cannot approve such applications until 15 days after notification for applications to export to North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries and Australia, Japan, or New Zealand; 15 days after notification for exports of commercial communication satellites for launch from and by nationals of the Russian Federation, Ukraine, or Kazakhstan; and 30 days after notification for other countries. If the Congress enacts a joint resolution during that time period prohibiting the export, the State Department cannot issue the license. In fiscal year 2000, the State Department notified Congress of 123 applications. These applications averaged nearly 7 months to review. Our analysis did not include the portions of the license application review process associated with congressional notifications. Many license applications take substantial time to process because they require attention by the licensing office, other agencies, and other State Department offices. License applications that are referred to other agencies and offices for review take an average of more than two months longer to review than applications that do not leave the licensing office. However, the State Department has not established formal guidelines for licensing officers to use to determine which agencies and State Department offices need to see certain license applications. As a result, the licensing office may be referring more applications than necessary. Further, officials in State Department reviewing offices generally do not receive training on how the licensing process works or how to conduct a review and consider the reviews a secondary work priority. The State Department lacks procedures to control the flow of license applications through the review process, and as a result, in fiscal year 2000, hundreds of applications were lost and thousands more were delayed. To improve license processing time, Congress increased the licensing office’s budget. The licensing office has hired additional license officers and is planning to develop a new electronic business processing system, but improvement efforts also need to focus on guidance and training for referrals, and the new electronic system must incorporate procedures for ensuring the efficient flow of applications through the process. Licensing officers lack formal guidelines on when to refer applications to other agencies and offices. As a result, applications may be unnecessarily referred, which results in longer processing time. In lieu of guidelines, licensing officers told us that they rely on prior cases and certain “rules-of- thumb” that they have learned, over time, from their predecessors or supervisors. For example, applications involving new weapon systems or technical data and applications for license agreements, except for those involving minor amendments to previously approved agreements, are all referred to the Defense Department. When no existing rule applies, some licensing officers told us that they use their own rule, which is “when in doubt, refer it out.” Licensing officers told us that they once used the State Department’s country policy handbook as a guide for referring applications, but the handbook has not been updated since 1996 and is too out-of-date to be used. Licensing officers also told us that because of the lack of referral criteria, newer licensing officers tend to refer more applications. Reviewing agencies and offices generally do not tell the State Department’s licensing office which applications they need to review. Over half of the license referrals are sent to the Defense Department, but there is no formal guidance explaining what applications the Department needs to review. Of the 11 State Department offices that frequently review applications, only one office, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, provides written guidance on the applications it needs to review. An official in the Political-Military Affairs Bureau’s Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfer Policy told us that his office asks the licensing office for all applications that are referred to the geographic bureaus. However, he could not provide documentation of that guidance and licensing officers did not mention this guidance when we asked. An official in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs said that he does not need to see most of the applications he receives. He told us he only needed license applications related to three countries, but had not told the licensing office. The State Department does not provide training to license reviewers so that they understand how the licensing process works and what to look for when conducting a license application review. Several officials had only a limited understanding of the process and the purpose of their reviews. Of the officials we spoke with in State Department reviewing offices, only one told us that he attended a training course on the export license process. Officials in six reviewing offices were military officers on detail, generally as military attachés in geographic bureaus, and are only in their positions for a few years. Several license reviewers told us that they are not always sure why they have been asked to review specific license applications and do not always understand the issues or concerns associated with an application. One official told us that he calls other offices to make sure his recommendation is consistent with those offices. Two officials assumed that they received all license applications associated with their geographic region and were surprised to find out that they review only a portion of those applications. One senior licensing officer told us that State Department license application reviewers do not provide adequate information when recommending a license denial, and licensing officers must go back to the reviewing official to obtain additional information to ensure that a denial is justified. Reviewing officials in 10 State Department offices told us that reviewing license applications is only one of their duties, and in some offices, it is a secondary duty. For example, in geographic bureaus the military attaché, whose primary responsibility is providing military advice related to their geographic region, is often in charge of ensuring that license reviews are conducted. One attaché showed us a pile of license applications that he had accumulated over the past 4 weeks. The attaché explained that he waits for enough applications to come in so he can review them all in one afternoon. Other State Department reviewers told us that there are no backup personnel to handle application reviews. If a reviewer is on leave or work-related travel, the license applications wait for the reviewer’s return with no action taken in the interim. The State Department has not established procedures to ensure that agencies are conducting timely reviews of referred applications, that license application referrals are received when they are sent through the mail or by courier, and that applications that become lost or delayed are quickly identified. Timely Reviews of Referred Applications: There are no guidelines governing the time permitted to review license applications, no requirement for a reviewing agency or office to justify a lengthy review, and the licensing office does not routinely check the status of a review unless an applicant calls to ask why an application is taking a long time. While the majority of reviews by other agencies and offices are completed in 26 days, 10 percent of referrals take 57 days or more. Several State Department license reviewers told us that applications frequently sit on their desk or the desk of other officials awaiting attention. As explained previously, several reviewing offices do not have backup personnel to handle application reviews when the reviewer is out of the office. Ensuring Referrals Are Received: The licensing office has no procedures to ensure that other agencies or State Department offices receive license applications from the licensing office. Licensing office officials told us that they periodically send the Defense Department a list of outstanding applications. However, no lists are routinely sent to State Department offices. Further, periodic lists do not identify applications until they are delayed for several weeks or more. State Department license reviewers told us that they frequently receive calls from applicants asking why their application is taking a long time. Reviewers told us that many of these inquiries identified applications that were either sent by the licensing office but not received by the reviewing organization or identified applications where the reviewer had returned the recommendation, but it was never received by the licensing office. When these cases are identified, the licensing office either sends another copy of the application to the reviewing office or the reviewing office sends a copy of its recommendation to the licensing office. As shown in table 1, our analysis of applications completed in September 2000 that were referred to the Defense Department or State Department offices identified 233 instances where applications took more than 2 weeks to travel from the licensing office to a reviewing office or from a reviewing office back to the licensing office. We identified 101 instances in that month alone where an application took over 4 weeks to travel from one office to the next. For fiscal year 2000 as a whole, there were 254 instances where applications were lost between the licensing office and a reviewing agency or office. Once identified as missing, usually as the result of a contact from the license applicant, they had to be re-sent. These applications averaged 7 months in the review process. Tracking Lost or Delayed Applications: The progress of license applications are not tracked within the licensing office as applications move from one stage in the process to the next. While the majority of license applications took only 2 or 3 days to pass from one administrative point to the next within the licensing office during fiscal year 2000, we identified 2,777 instances where applications took over 2 weeks and 674 of these took over 4 weeks to move from one point to the next while no substantive review activity occurred. The following describe three key stages of the licensing process where applications were delayed within the licensing office. When a licensing officer decides to refer an application for review to another agency or State Department office, administrative personnel make copies and send the applications to each reviewing organization selected by the licensing officer. Licensing officers record the date they make this decision and administrative personnel record the date the application is sent to an agency or a State Department office. The majority of applications were sent to agencies and offices within 2 days of the licensing officers’ decision, but 586 applications took more than 2 weeks and 118 of these took over 4 weeks. State Department personnel were not able to explain the delays. Agencies and State Department offices return a recommendation on each license application referral. Administrative personnel record the date each recommendation is returned. When all recommendations are received, the license referral process is complete and administrative personnel return the application to the licensing officer. Administrative personnel told us that they periodically check their files to see if they have overlooked any applications. These periodic checks depend on their workload. Our analysis showed that the majority of applications are returned within 3 days after the last recommendation is received, but 1,861 took over 2 weeks and 443 of these took over 4 weeks to be sent to a licensing officer for a final decision on the license application. Once a licensing officer decides to approve, deny, or return an application without action, the officer records the date and provides the application to administrative personnel who send the response to the applicant. The majority of responses took 3 days from the licensing officers’ decision to the time the response was sent to the applicant, but 330 responses took over 2 weeks and 113 of these took over 4 weeks. The licensing office has taken steps to improve license processing time by hiring additional licensing officers and is planning to upgrade the office’s electronic business processing system. The office’s expenditures increased from $4.6 million in fiscal year 1999 to $9.3 million in fiscal year 2000. The number of licensing officers has risen from 23 in fiscal year 2000 to 34 in fiscal year 2001. The office reported that increased staffing has improved median processing time for referred applications from 69 days in fiscal year 2000 to 60 days in September 2001. The licensing office is also developing an information technology strategy with the long-term goal of automating the licensing process. It plans to automate the process for submitting license applications and develop a means to electronically send license applications and supporting documentation to the Defense Department, which is also developing its own electronic system to process applications; accommodate new processing requirements such as additional reports; add high-speed scanners and barcode printing and reading equipment; support future requirements in the areas of programming and support. However, the State Department’s plan to automate the licensing process needs to focus on making significant improvements to the licensing process before applying new technology. The Director of the licensing office told us that they will make process adjustments and changes in personnel as they are upgrading to a new electronic business system. In a 1994 study of fundamental practices that led to performance improvements in leading private and public organizations, we reported that electronic business system initiatives must be focused on process improvement. Information systems that simply use technology to do the same work, the same way, but only faster typically fail or reach only a fraction of their potential. In May 2000, we reported that when developing new electronic business processes, it is important to ensure that current business processes are working well before applying new technology. In fact, agency heads are required by the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 to analyze an agency’s mission and revise mission-related processes, as appropriate, before making significant investments in information technology. Not revising business processes prior to investing in new technology creates the risk of merely automating inefficient ways of doing business. In conducting our work, these comments were echoed by officials from other government agencies who we met with to understand ways to automate business processes that are similar to the license review process. Officials from the Defense Electronic Business Program Office and the Patent and Trademark Office told us that an essential ingredient for effectively transitioning to a new electronic business system is reengineering and streamlining of work processes before automating those processes. Automating an inefficient process will not likely make it more efficient. License applicants have long complained that they cannot predict how long a license review may take and are frustrated by delays. Although licensing officers and license reviewers require time to deliberate and ensure that license decisions are appropriate, a substantial number of applications become stalled between reviews by licensing officers and reviewers. Improving efficiency, predictability, and timeliness of the process may be achieved with relatively small changes in guidelines and procedures. To improve the efficiency and timeliness of the munitions licensing process, we recommend that the Secretary of State direct the Office of Defense Trade Controls in conjunction with reviewing agencies and offices to develop criteria for determining which license applications to refer to other agencies and offices, and formal guidelines and training for organizations that receive referrals so that reviewers clearly understand their duties when reviewing license applications, and establish timeliness goals for each phase of the licensing process. Further, we recommend that the Secretary of State direct the Office of Defense Trade Controls to establish a mechanism to track license applications through each phase of the process to ensure timeliness goals are met and applications are not lost or delayed. To prevent imbedding an inefficient process into the State Department’s planned electronic business processing system, we recommend that the Secretary of State ensure the steps outlined above are taken before proceeding with a new electronic processing system. The State Department should coordinate its efforts with the Defense Department because the Defense Department is also developing a new electronic system and receives the majority of license application referrals. In commenting on our draft report, the State Department said that certain of our findings appear to be premised on conjecture and a failure to comprehend how foreign policy provides the overall context for munitions export controls and that other findings appear to be exaggerated and reflect out-of-context presentations. Also, the Department stated that our presentation of data was inflammatory and trivialized the licensing officer’s role in referring license applications for review. Further, our characterization of its plans to enhance automation was totally inaccurate. The Department appears to have missed the point that our report, as stated in our scope and methodology, is primarily concerned with the procedures in place to ensure that license applications flow smoothly through the review process and not with the time spent in substantive license application reviews. In our review of State Department data, we took extreme care not to confuse legitimately lengthy license application reviews caused by national security and foreign policy concerns with delays caused by administrative inadequacies. Regarding the administrative process, the Department provided only one bit of additional information. That is that the licensing office reviews computer runs of pending license applications to determine their status. However, the point of our finding is that such monitoring needs to be done on a routine basis, not sporadically, which is the current situation. Licensing office personnel told us that these reviews of pending applications are generally done on an “as time permits” basis. We have modified our report to accommodate this additional information. The Department referred to our point, early in the report, that industry has raised concerns about the effect of the process on U. S. defense industry sales as an example of our exaggeration and out-of-context presentation. It is not clear from the Department’s comment whether it is taking issue with the validity of the comment or our statement that industry has raised the concern. This statement was not intended to validate industry concerns but was merely meant to explain the reason why we were asked to examine the State Department’s licensing process. The Department’s statement that the report is inflammatory relates to our statement that ‘hundreds” of applications were lost and “thousands” were delayed while no substantive reviews occurred. Our report provides a detailed explanation of the data on which our comment was based. Our use of the term “lost” refers to the fact that applications referred for review were sent by the licensing office but not received by the reviewing office and had to be re-sent. The Department states that no licenses were lost because the licensing office retains the original. The Department also pointed out that the “lost” applications are a very small percentage of the total number of license application referrals. We agree. Our point, however, is that applications that are lost could be easily identified and forwarded by a routine status review. Currently, the time required to process these lost applications, as we point out in the report, averages about 7 months. In terms of the delayed applications, the Department commented that it does not keep detailed diaries on every application and that the lack of an audit trail should not be a basis for “unqualified conjecture or speculation.” Our statement that thousands of applications were delayed is based solely on detailed data provided by the State Department. The Department stated that we trivialized the role of the licensing officer when we explained that there are no formal guidelines to assist in referring license applications and the Department further stated that decisions to refer license applications rely on practice, precedent, and the current state of foreign policy. The comments explained that licensing officers are trained to consider applications with the utmost seriousness. In our opinion, the lack of agreement and understanding between the licensing office and reviewing offices on the referral process demonstrates the problems that can occur when a process that requires actions and interpretations by a variety of people lacks formal guidelines. Our findings and recommendations were based on lengthy and structured interviews with all licensing officers who had over one year of experience and officials in State Department offices that receive these referrals. Based on the information provided by these officials, it is clear that State Department offices that receive referrals are at times confused about the referral process and licensing officers believe that further guidance would assist in making decisions to refer or not to refer a license application. In regard to the Department’s comment that our report is inaccurate concerning its automation plans, we held lengthy discussions with managers from the Office of Defense Trade Controls concerning their information technology plans and evaluated existing copies of automation plans. Based on the State Department comments, we requested any additional information on technology modernization plans that we had not seen. The Department provided no further information concerning its plans. As stated in the report, the Director of the Office of Defense Trade Controls told us that he plans to correct inadequacies in the licensing process during the modernization. As we pointed out, past GAO work has proven that proceeding with information technology modernization without first correcting problems in current systems risks merely automating inefficient ways of doing business. The State Department did not agree with our recommendation to develop criteria for determining which license applications to refer to other agencies and offices and to develop guidelines and training for offices that receive referrals. The Department commented that they have made a conscious, deliberate, decision not to develop guidelines that address every country or commodity. The Department explained that they have written operational and policy guidelines that are used extensively. The guidelines, however, are not written down in a single document and are heavily reliant on practice and the current state of foreign policy. The Department acknowledged that practice within certain regions needs to be updated and made uniform. During our structured interviews with licensing officers, we asked if there were written guidelines to guide license referral decisions and the licensing officers explained that there were none except for referrals related to the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. The Department’s response to this recommendation did state that training for reviewing officers in State Department offices is needed, and the Department intends to discuss this issue as their information technology system is enhanced. In response to our recommendation to establish timeliness goals, the Department said that it is considering a timeliness goal of 25 working days for license referrals, which is similar to the Department of Defense’s self- imposed goal. The Department also explained that licensing officers have timeliness goals in their performance plans. Our concern in making this recommendation was not with the time spent in substantive review of applications but rather with the administrative procedures in the process. That is, those portions of the process in which paper moves from one desk to another during which there are no “value-added” steps occurring. The comments did not mention timeliness goals for administrative phases of the process within the Office of Defense Trade Controls. The Department agreed with our recommendation to establish a mechanism to track license applications; however, it also stated that the capability to track already exists and the information technology modernization plan that is under development will be engineered to enable tracking. We agree that tracking is a current capability. Our recommendation is to begin using that capability to routinely track license applications. We hope that the Department intends to do that rather than waiting for a new system that has not yet been developed. The Department did not comment on our recommendation to ensure the steps outlined in the previous recommendations are taken before proceeding with a new electronic processing system. To determine conditions that cause delays in the licensing process, we reviewed regulations governing the process, met with personnel who are involved in the licensing process, reviewed license applications, and collected and analyzed databases that show the flow of applications. We reviewed the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations to understand the rules that govern license processing. We also discussed guidelines with licensing office officials and license reviewers to understand written and verbal guidelines associated with the process. To understand the process of reviewing license applications, we met with all licensing officers with more than one year of experience, and administrative personnel from the licensing office. Our interviews with the licensing officers were detailed and structured and we provided our questions to Office of Defense Trade Controls management in advance. To understand the role of license reviewers, we met with reviewers in the 11 State Department offices that review nearly all referred applications within the State Department. We also met with Defense Department officials who manage the review of license applications. We selected a random sample of applications that were completed in September 2000 and took over 90 days to process in order to understand the progress of license applications that take longer to review. To analyze the flow of license applications through the process, we obtained the licensing office’s database that has dates associated with the progress of license application reviews. We reviewed data on all license applications completed in fiscal year 2000. To determine how efficiently applications were transferred from one office to another, we compared data logs from the Defense Department and State Department reviewing offices with the licensing office’s database for applications completed in September 2000. We cannot be certain of the reliability of the data we reviewed. The State Department does not have a data dictionary that explains the data. As a substitute, we discussed key elements of the database with a State Department representative to ensure that we accurately interpreted the data. In a recent review of the Office of Defense Trade Controls, the State Department Inspector General sampled selected elements of the database and found data entry errors. While conducting our analysis, we also found data entry inaccuracies. We worked with a State Department representative to correct some of these inaccuracies. However, some data fields did not have entries. As a result, data for some license applications was incomplete. We also collected information from the licensing office on their plans to improve license processing. We obtained information on their budget, staffing, and plans for a new electronic business system. We reviewed prior work to determine appropriate ways to implement new electronic business systems and met with the Defense Electronic Business Program Office and the Patent and Trademark Office to learn from their experiences. We also met with Defense Department officials who review State Department license applications to understand their efforts to coordinate the implementation of their electronic business system with State Department efforts. We conducted our work between May 2001 and November 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days after its issuance. At that time, we will send copies to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, and the House Committee on International Relations. We will also send copies to the Secretaries of State, Defense, and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. This report will also be made available on GAO’s home page http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-4841. Others making key contributions to this report were Blake Ainsworth, Heather Barker, Raymond H. Denmark, Thomas J. Denomme, Minette D. Richardson, and John P. Ting. 1. We changed the text to reflect that the U.S. export licensing process can be lengthy because of foreign policy and national security considerations, not just national security considerations. 2. We changed the text on page 8 to state that the licensing office does not routinely check the status of license reviews. 3. This State Department comment is not correct. Through discussions with State Department budgeting officials, we determined that the information in the draft report is correct. The data we reported are actual Office of Defense Trade Controls expenditures for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The State Department comments refer to authorized funding levels that were not actually spent in fiscal year 1999. 4. The report states that the State Department does not have formal guidelines for referring license applications to other agencies and offices. 5. The licensing office did not provide sufficient information for us to validate this statement. 6. We revised text on page 8 of the report to say that no lists are routinely sent to State Department offices. 7. Text revised. 8. Text revised. 9. Text revised.

The U.S. defense industry and some foreign government purchasers have expressed concern that the U.S. export control process is unnecessarily burdensome. Defense industry officials contend that extended reviews of export license applications by the State Department have resulted in lost sales and are harming the nation's defense industry. The State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls is responsible for licensing the export and temporary import of defense articles and services. Many license applications take a long time to review because of their complexity and the need to consider different points of view. However, several conditions make the application review process less efficient and cause delays. The State Department has not established formal guidelines for determining the agencies and offices that need to review license applications. As a result, the licensing office refers more license applications to other agencies and offices than may be necessary. Furthermore, many license application reviewers in State Department reviewing offices consider license reviews a low priority. The State Department lacks procedures to monitor the flow of license applications through the review process. The State Department has hired new licensing officers which license office officials say has decreased processing time, and plans to upgrade the office's electronic business system. However, the planned upgrade needs to (1) ensure a controlled and timely flow of applications and (2) track the progress of applications.

For Jamie Heutmaker, Thursday was 49 years in the making. On a hot summer’s day in 1969, Heutmaker, then 14, and one of his peers were sexually abused by a priest from the Church of St. Mark in St. Paul. Although the Rev. Jerome Kern’s conduct was reported to Catholic Church staff by his parents, it wasn’t until now, Heutmaker said, that he felt some measure of justice. “It feels really good to be here today,” Heutmaker, now 62, said tearfully amid a crowd of survivors of clergy sexual abuse gathered in a downtown St. Paul law office Thursday afternoon. “Never in my life did I think it would come to this, 49 years later. … I am extremely grateful.” Led by their attorneys, including Jeff Anderson, the group gathered to announce a historic $210 million settlement in the bankruptcy battle between 450 survivors of clergy sexual abuse and the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. The agreement comes after three years of legal wrangling in federal bankruptcy court. The two sides sought an agreement on how much the archdiocese should pay to survivors who endured both abuse at the hands of clergy and the subsequent cover-up of the conduct by archdiocesan staff, including former Archbishop John Nienstedt. For survivors, such as Heutmaker, the fight began long before that and involved more than legal sparring. He thanked his parents, friends, attorneys, fellow survivors and wife for standing by him as he battled years of anxiety, depression and thoughts of suicide. “Without all of you I don’t think I would be standing here today,” Heutmaker said. Anderson cried and hugged Heutmaker and other survivors as he discussed the resolution. The agreement was negotiated by attorneys for both sides as well as members of the creditors committee, a group composed of five abuse survivors. “It really is a story of trauma and triumph,” Anderson said of the path to the settlement. It’s the largest ever reached by a Catholic archdiocese going through bankruptcy. “I am almost at a loss for some words because there are some feelings that are overwhelming me at this moment,” Anderson continued. “Four hundred and fifty survivors have found their voice and expressed their voice and … as a result, we have reached a negotiated settlement that not only includes accountability and financial accountability, but it actually advances the (cause) of child protection in a way that has never really been done in this country.” Officials with the archdiocese said the resolution effectively ends all litigation pending against the local church and its parishes and allows everyone involved to enter the next phase of healing. Archbishop Bernard Hebda apologized to survivors at a news conference held outside the archdiocese’s St. Paul offices later Thursday. “Without (your) courage and persistence, today would not have been possible,” said Hebda, who was named to lead the archdiocese after Nienstedt’s resignation three years ago. “I recognize that the abuse stole so much from you. … Your childhood, your innocence, your safety, your ability to trust … and in many ways, your faith.” He noted that many lives were forever changed by the abuse. “The church let you down,” Hebda said. “I am very sorry.” Details of how the settlement will be allocated to survivors and how much will cover attorney fees are still being determined. FUNDS WILL BE DISBURSED In the coming days, officials on both sides will work out the details of the agreement, which still needs to be approved by a federal bankruptcy court judge. Tom Abood, chair of the Archdiocesan Finance Council and Reorganization Task Force, said the $210 million will be placed in a trust fund and disbursed to victims by an independent trustee, possibly beginning in the coming months. Abood led the final stretch of negotiations for the archdiocese, which he said took 18 days to reach. The payout is about $50 million more than the last plan presented by the archdiocese, which both the bankruptcy judge overseeing the case and survivors maintained was insufficient. The judge also rejected the plan submitted by survivors, which called for the archdiocese alone to contribute up to $80 million. The judge directed both sides back to the negotiating table in December. Among the sticking points in the past was how much exposure the archdiocese and its parishes’ insurance companies should have in the settlement. About $170 million of the payout will be covered by insurance carriers under the terms of the agreement, Abood said, with the other $40 million coming from the archdiocese and its parishes. Where that money will come from inside those organizations wasn’t immediately clear. Abood listed an archdiocesan medical benefits plan, cash the archdiocese has on hand, as well as profits from the sales of land and property as some sources. Both the archdiocese and its parishes rely on donations. While it’s a big financial hit, the archdiocese can endure it, Abood said. “We will have to work hard … to make our budget work, but we will do it and Catholics in this community can be confident that we will be moving forward responsibly with our budget and that individual parishes will do the same.” PROTECTIONS FOR CHILDREN Far more important than the payout to survivors are the protections now in place for children within the archdiocese as well as the exposure of the priests and staff who either abused minors or covered up such conduct, Anderson and survivors said Thursday. They pointed to the agreement reached between the Ramsey County attorney’s office and the archdiocese in 2015 as a key component to the creation of a safer environment for youth. That settlement came about six months after the county attorney’s office filed six gross misdemeanor charges against the archdiocese for failing to adequately protect three children sexually abused by former priest Curtis Wehmeyer. Among the terms: That the archdiocese adopt new protocols for reporting and responding to allegations of clergy abuse. That archdiocesan officials regularly visit all of their parishes and schools. A requirement of background checks and child safety training for all staff and publish statements in the Catholic Spirit — the archdiocese’s newspaper — urging victims of sexual abuse to report conduct to police. An audit conducted earlier this year found the archdiocese to so far be “substantially compliant” in those efforts. Jim Keenan, chairman of the creditors committee and an abuse survivor, also touted the survivors’ courage to reject the archdiocese’s initial payout proposal as a critical turning point for victims. “That hadn’t been done before. It was a first,” Keenan said. “It changed the playing field. They have to listen to victims now … and (that’s) worth more than the (settlement amount).” Thursday’s announcement affirmed that the years of “emotional energy” he’s poured into this cause were worth it, Keenan added. “I think it shows (that) if anyone out there wonders, ‘Do I have the legs to stand up … (for) my voice?’ You absolutely do,” Keenan said. “Speak your truth, because what happens is you may make change. I really do believe we have made the world safer in the (Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis).” CHANGE TO STATE LAW PROMPTED LAWSUITS The archdiocese faced numerous lawsuits after Minnesota lawmakers in 2013 created a three-year window for victims of past sexual abuse to file claims that otherwise would have been invalid due to the statute of limitations. The onslaught compelled the archdiocese to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2015, becoming the 12th U.S. diocese or archdiocese at the time to seek reorganization following numerous sex abuse claims. The bankruptcy case proceeded slowly as attorneys argued over how much money the archdiocese should have to pay. At least 15 dioceses or archdioceses across the country have filed for bankruptcy, including three in Minnesota, as they sought to protect themselves from growing claims of sexual abuse by clergy members. A fourth Minnesota diocese, St. Cloud, announced its intention to file in February. According to the website BishopAccountability.org, which tracks clergy sex abuse cases, this is the largest settlement among the archdioceses and dioceses that have filed for bankruptcy protection. Related Articles St. Paul apartment fire leaves one injured, others displaced St. Paul’s Theater Mu cuts ties with artistic director Randy Reyes following complaints St. Paul ad exec debuts his winning brew: Minnehaha Malt Want to have a cookout at a St. Paul park? The annual picnic-shelter lottery opens Jan. 2 Delta Queen wins federal exemption to cruise Mississippi River again, will visit St. Paul The largest payout of any kind came in 2007, when the Archdiocese of Los Angeles settled clergy sex abuse cases with 508 victims for $660 million. Also that year, the Diocese of San Diego agreed to a settlement of nearly $200 million to be paid to 144 people who said they were sexually abused. This report includes information from the Associated Press. ||||| Jamie Heutmaker, far right, a victim of clergy sexual abuse, addresses media alongside other victims and family members during a press conference detailing the settlement reached between the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis and clergy abuse survivors at the office of attorney Jeff Anderson, Thursday, May 31, 2018, in St. Paul, Minn. (Photo: Aaron Lavinsky, Star Tribune via AP) The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis says it has agreed to pay a $210 million settlement to 450 victims of clergy sexual abuse, one of the largest payouts to date in the U.S. over the Catholic church’s priest abuse scandal. The settlement, which is expected to be approved by a federal judge overseeing the case, resolves a years-long dispute and is being carried out as part of the Twin Cities archdiocese’s bankruptcy reorganization. Diocese officials say that about $40 million will be paid by the archdiocese, while the other $170 million will come from the archdiocese’s insurers. “I recognize that the abuse stole so much from you — your childhood, your innocence, your safety, your ability to trust, and in many cases your faith," said Archbishop Bernard Hebda, in announcing the settlement. “Relationships with family and friends, relationships in your parishes and communities were harmed, lives were forever changed. The church let you down. I am very sorry.” The settlement comes after the Minnesota Legislature in 2013 opened a three-year window in the statute of limitations that allowed alleged victims of prior abuse to sue for damages. That measure resulted in hundreds of claims being lodged against the archdiocese, which filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Last month, a federal appeals court affirmed a December 2017 decision by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Kressel that the parishes and other nonprofit entities were independent, and their assets could not be exposed in the bankruptcy case. The judge in his December ruling rejected the competing reorganization plans filed by the archdiocese and a creditors’ committee and ordered both sides back into mediation. On Thursday, several who said they were abused by priests they had entrusted expressed a measure of relief over the settlement, while also noting that the trauma of abuse has left an indelible mark on their lives. “There have been so many times that what was done to me has interfered with the joy of being a mother,” said Marie Mielke, a sexual abuse survivor who says she was groomed by a priest she when she was just 12 years old. Eighteen U.S. dioceses and religious orders have filed for bankruptcy protection during the ongoing sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic church, according to the web site BishopAccountability.org, which tracks sexual abuse cases. A 19th, the Diocese of St. Cloud in Minnesota, announced in February that it plans to file for bankruptcy protection. Jeff Anderson, an attorney representing the victims, said the archdiocese listed 91 Twin Cities clergy who were credibly accused of sexual abuse. “This has been a long day coming,” said Jim Keenan, a victim who also served as chairman of the Creditors Committee in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis bankruptcy case. “It’s a triumph. I realize that the work is not yet done. There’s lots of work around the world to be done.” Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2LQ1iKW ||||| Victims of abuse by priests stand in support of the settlement with the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis during a press conference in the Jeff Anderson & Associates office in Saint Paul, Minn.,... (Associated Press) ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — The Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis announced a $210 million settlement Thursday with 450 victims of clergy sexual abuse as part of its plan for bankruptcy reorganization, making this the second-largest payout in the scandal that rocked the nation's Roman Catholic Church. Victims' attorney Jeff Anderson said the money, a total of $210,290,724, will go into a pot to pay survivors, with the amount for each survivor to be determined. Anderson said a formal reorganization plan will now be submitted to a bankruptcy judge for approval, and then it will be sent to the victims for a vote. Anderson expected they will readily approve it. "We changed the playing field," said Jim Keenan, who was sexually abused as a child in the 1980s by a Twin Cities-area priest. "They have to listen to victims now, and that is huge." Marie Mielke, who was sexually abused from 1997 to 2000 by a St. Paul seminarian who later became a priest, urged fellow survivors to have the courage to stand up. "Power and healing is just as true as the evil that's out there," she said. "So get up and grab it." Archbishop Bernard Hebda said he was grateful to victims who came forward. "I recognize that the abuse stole so much from you, your childhood, your innocence, your safety, your ability to trust, and in many cases, your faith," he said, adding that he hopes the settlement brings closure to those who were harmed. "We've been working with them very carefully to try to formulate this in a way that benefits them to the maximum." According to the website BishopAccountability.org, which tracks clergy sex abuse cases, this is the largest total payout among the Roman Catholic archdioceses and dioceses that have filed for bankruptcy protection. But the largest total payout of any kind came in 2007, when the Archdiocese of Los Angeles settled clergy sex abuse cases with 508 victims for $660 million. Thomas Abood, chairman of the Archdiocesan Finance Council and Reorganization Task Force, said the settlement will be outlined in greater detail when it is filed in court. But he said most of the funding, roughly $170 million, will come from insurance carriers. The rest will come from parishes, the archdiocese, a pension fund and real estate sales. "We will do everything we can to expedite it," Abood said, adding that he hopes the process can be completed in the next few months. "We have gone everywhere we could to raise money for this settlement." The archdiocese filed for bankruptcy in 2015, two years after the Minnesota Legislature opened a three-year window that allowed people who had been sexually abused in the past to sue for damages. That resulted in hundreds of claims being filed against the archdiocese. The bankruptcy case proceeded slowly as attorneys argued over how much money the archdiocese and insurance companies should pay. Last December, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Kressel rejected competing reorganization plans filed by the archdiocese and a creditors' committee and ordered both sides back into mediation. Pamela Foohey, associate professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, said this settlement speaks to the value of negotiations — as the settlement amount is about $50 million more than the original plan put forth by the archdiocese. "It allows survivors to feel like justice was served and ... having a voice was really important to accepting the outcome," she said. And, in going back to the table, the victims' advocates were able to secure more money from insurance carriers, showing that victims don't have to take what's given because further negotiations "might show that they have more than they are saying they do." Fifteen Catholic dioceses or archdioceses across the country have filed for bankruptcy, including three in Minnesota, as they sought to protect themselves from growing claims of sexual abuse by clergy members. A fourth Minnesota diocese, St. Cloud, announced its intention to file in February but hasn't done so. ___ Forliti reported from Minneapolis. Associated Press Writer Youssef Rddad also contributed from Minneapolis.

"This has been a long day coming," a sexual abuse survivor said Thursday as the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis announced "the second-largest payout in the scandal that rocked the nation's Roman Catholic Church," per the AP. The $210 million settlement for 450 victims of clergy sex abuse comes after years of back and forth between victims' lawyers, who describe 91 clergy members credibly accused of abuse, and the archdiocese, which filed for bankruptcy in 2015, reports USA Today. "I recognize that the abuse stole so much from you—your childhood, your innocence, your safety, your ability to trust, and in many cases your faith," Archbishop Bernard Hebda said, addressing victims. "The church let you down. I am very sorry." Officials say the deal, which needs approval from a federal judge, is a hit the archdiocese can "endure," per the Pioneer Press. It's to pay $40 million, with $170 million coming from its insurers. The largest payout made was the $660 million the Archdiocese of Los Angeles paid to 508 victims in 2007.

Witnesses in a federal criminal case may find themselves arrested, held for bail, and in some cases imprisoned until they are called upon to testify. The same is true in most if not all of the states. Although subject to intermittent criticism, it has been so at least from the beginning of the Republic. The Supreme Court has never squarely considered the constitutionality of the federal statute or any of its predecessors, but it has observed in passing that, "[t]he duty to disclose knowledge of crime ... is so vital that one known to be innocent may be detained in the absence of bail, as a material witness" and that, "[t]he constitutionality of this [federal material witness] statute apparently has never been doubted." In spite of the concerns of some that the authority can be used as a means to jail a suspect while authorities seek to discover probable cause sufficient to support a criminal accusation or as a preventive detention measure, the lower courts have denied that the federal material witness statute can be used as a substitute for a criminal arrest warrant. Particularly in the early stages of an investigation, however, an individual's proximity to a crime may make him both a legitimate witness and a legitimate suspect. The case law and statistical information suggest that the federal statute is used with surprising regularity and most often in the prosecution of immigration offenses involving material witnesses who are foreign nationals. Critics, however, contend that since September 11, 2001, seventy individuals, mostly Muslims, have been arrested and detained in abuse of the statute's authority. An arrest warrant for a witness with evidence material to a federal criminal proceeding may be issued by federal or state judges or magistrates. The statute applies to potential grand jury witnesses as well as to potential trial witnesses. Section 3144 on its face authorizes arrest at the behest of any party to a criminal proceeding. In the case of criminal trial, both the government and the defendants may call upon the benefits of section 3144. Availability is a bit less clear in the case of grand jury proceedings. In a literal sense, there are no parties to a grand jury investigation other than the grand jury. Moreover, it seems unlikely that a suspect, even the target of a grand jury investigation, would be considered a "party" to a grand jury proceeding. The purpose of section 3144 is the preservation of evidence for criminal proceedings. Potential defendants, even if they are the targets of a grand jury investigation, have no right to present evidence to the grand jury. On the other hand, a federal prosecutor ordinarily arranges for the presentation of witnesses to the grand jury. It is therefore not surprising that the courts seem to assume without deciding that the government may claim the benefits of section 3144 in the case of grand jury witnesses. Issuance of a section 3144 arrest warrant requires affidavits establishing probable cause to believe (1) that the witness can provide material evidence, and (2) that it will be "impracticable" to secure the witness' attendance at the proceeding simply by subpoenaing him. Neither the statute nor the case law directly address the question of what constitutes "material" evidence for purposes of section 3144, but in other contexts the term is understood to mean that which has a "natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed." At the grand jury level, the government may establish probable cause to believe a witness can provide material evidence through the affidavit of a federal prosecutor or a federal investigator gathering evidence with an eye to its presentation to the grand jury. This may not prove a particularly demanding standard in some instances given the sweeping nature of the grand jury's power of inquiry. As to the second required probable cause showing, a party seeking a material witness arrest warrant must establish probable cause to believe that it will be impractical to rely upon a subpoena to securing the witness' appearance. The case law on point is sketchy, but it seems to indicate that impracticality may be shown by evidence of possible flight, or of an expressed refusal to cooperate, or of difficulty experienced in serving a subpoena upon a trial witness, or presumably by evidence that the witness is a foreign national who will have returned or been returned home by the time his testimony is required. Evidence that investigators have experienced difficulties serving a particular grand jury witness may not be enough to justify the issuance of an arrest warrant in all cases. With limited variations, federal bail laws apply to material witnesses arrested under section 3144. Arrested material witnesses are entitled to the assistance of counsel during bail proceedings and to the appointment of an attorney when they are unable to detain private counsel. The bail laws operate under an escalating system in which release is generally favored, then release with conditions or limitations is preferred, and finally as a last option detention is permitted. A defendant is released on his word (personal recognizance) or bond unless the court finds such assurances insufficient to guarantee his subsequent appearance or to ensure public or individual safety. A material witness need only satisfy the appearance standard. A material witness who is unable to do so is released under such conditions or limitations as the court finds adequate to ensure his later appearance to testify. If neither word nor bond nor conditions will suffice, the witness may be detained. The factors a court may consider in determining whether a material witness is likely to remain available include his deposition, character, health, and community ties. Section 3144 declares that "[n]o material witness may be detained because of inability to comply with any condition of release if the testimony of such witness can adequately be secured by deposition, and if further detention is not necessary to prevent a failure of justice." The corresponding federal deposition rule permits the witness, the government, or the defendant to request that a detained material witness' deposition be taken. A court enjoys only limited discretion to deny a detained witness' request. The Fifth Circuit has observed that, "Read together, Rule 15(a) and section 3144 provide a detained witness with a mechanism for securing his own release. He must file a written motion requesting that he be deposed. The motion must demonstrate that his testimony can adequately be secured by deposition, and that further detention is not necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Upon such showing, the district court must order his deposition and prompt release." Other courts seem to agree. The "failure of justice" limitation comes into play when release of the witness following the taking of his deposition would ultimately deny a defendant the benefit of favorable material testimony in derogation of his right to compulsory process. It does not include the fact that a judicial officer will not be present at the taking of the deposition or that the witness is an illegal alien subject to prosecution. Unlike the request of a detained witness, a government or defendant's request that a witness' deposition be taken must show "exceptional circumstances" and that granting the request is "in the interest of justice," F.R.Crim.P. 15(a)(1). Nevertheless, the fact that a witness is being detained will often be weighed heavily regardless of who requests that depositions be taken. The Circuits appear to be divided over whether in compliance with a local standing order the court may authorize depositions to be taken sua sponte in order to release a detained material witness. In any event, whether any such depositions may be introduced in later criminal proceedings will depend upon whether the defendant's constitutional rights to confrontation and compulsory process have been accommodated. The government must periodically report to the court on the continuing justification for holding an incarcerated material witness. While a material witness is being held in custody he is entitled to the daily witness fees authorized for attendance at judicial proceedings. Upon his release, the court may also order that he be provided with transportation and subsistence to enable him to return to his place of arrest or residence. Should he fail to appear after he has been released from custody he will be subject to prosecution, an offense which may be punished more severely if his failure involves interstate or foreign travel to avoid testifying in a felony case. H.R. 3199 : Witnesses at Congressional oversight hearings charged that the authority under 18 U.S.C. 3144 had been misused following September 11, 2001: [The authority has been used] to secure the indefinite incarceration of those [prosecutors] wanted to investigate as possible terrorist suspects. This allowed the government to ... avoid the constitutional protections guaranteed to suspects, including probable cause to believe the individual committed a crime and time-limited detention. . . Witnesses were typically held round the clock in solitary confinement, subjected to the harsh and degrading high security conditions typically reserved for the most dangerous inmates accused or convicted of the most serious crimes ... they were interrogated without counsel about their own alleged wrongdoing. … [A] large number of witnesses were never brought before a grand jury or court to testify. More tellingly, in repeated cases the government has now apologized for arresting and incarcerating the "wrong guy." The material witnesses were victims of the federal investigators and attorneys who were to[o] quick to jump to the wrong conclusions, relying on false, unreliable and irrelevant information. By evading the probable cause requirement for arrests of suspects, the government made numerous mistakes. At the same hearings the Justice Department pointed out that the material witness statute is a long-standing and generally applicable law and not a creation of the USA PATRIOT Act; that it operates under the supervision of the courts; that witnesses are afforded the assistance of counsel (appointed where necessary); and that witnesses are ordinarily released following their testimony. Section 12 of H.R. 3199 as reported by the House Judiciary Committee amended section 1001 of the USA PATRIOT Act by directing periodic review of the exercise of the authority under section 3144. In its original form section 1001 instructs the Justice Department Inspector General to designate an official who is (1) to receive and review complaints of alleged Justice Department civil rights and civil liberties violations, (2) to widely advertise his availability to receive such complaints, and (3) to report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees twice a year on implementation of that requirement, P.L. 107 - 56 , 115 Stat. 381 (2001). Section 12 amended section 1001 to impose additional responsibilities upon the Inspector General's designee , i.e., (1) to "review detentions of persons under section 3144 of title 18, United States Code, including their length, conditions of access to counsel, frequency of access to counsel, offense at issue, and frequency of appearances before a grand jury," (2) to advertise his availability to receive information concerning such activity, and (3) to report twice a year on implementation to the Judiciary Committees on implementation of this requirement. OMB announced that the Administration generally supports H.R. 3199 as passed by the House, but that "[t]he Administration strongly opposes section 12 of H.R. 3199 , which would authorize the Department of Justice's Inspector General to investigate the use of material witnesses. As it is written, this provision would entail wholesale violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which protects the secrecy and sanctity of grand jury proceedings." Perhaps because of Administration opposition, the provision was dropped from H.R. 3199 prior to House passage. No similar provision could be found in H.R. 3199 ( S. 1389 ) as approved in the Senate or in the conference bill sent to the President. S. 1739 : S. 1739 , introduced by Senator Leahy, rewrites section 3144. In its recast form, section 3144, among other things, would establish a preference for postponing arrest until after a material witness has been served with a summons or subpoena and failed or refused to appear, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that service is likely to result in flight or otherwise unlikely to secure the witness' attendance; make it clear that the provision applies to grand jury proceedings; explicitly permit arrest by officers who are not in physical possession of the warrant; require an initial judicial appearance without unnecessary delay in the district of the arrest or in an adjacent district if more expedient, or if the warrant was issued there and the appearance occurs on the day of arrest; limit detention to five day increments for a maximum of 30 days (10 days in the case of grand jury witness); require the Attorney General to file an annual report to the Judiciary Committees on the number of material witness warrants sought, granted and denied within the year; the number of material witnesses arrested who were not deposed or did not appear before judicial proceedings; and the average number of days arrested material witnesses were detained. In lieu of the clear and convincing evidence standard in favor of release and the time limits on detention, the existing statute insists that "no material witness may be detained because of inability to comply with any condition of release if the testimony of such witness can adequately be secured by deposition, and if further detention is not necessary to prevent a failure of justice," 18 U.S.C. 3144. The proposed amendment has no comparable provision. In light of the five day limit on detention without further judicial approval, S. 1739 would eliminate the reporting requirement now found in Rule 46(h)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, i.e., "An attorney for the government must report biweekly to the court, listing each material witness held in custody for more than 10 days pending indictment, arraignment, or trial. For each material witness listed in the report, an attorney for the government must state why the witness should not be released with or without a deposition being taken under Rule 15(a)."

The federal material witness statute provides that, "If it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding [including a grand jury proceeding], and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person and treat the person in accordance with the provisions of section 3142 of this title [relating to bail]. No material witness may be detained because of inability to comply with any condition of release if the testimony of such witness can adequately be secured by deposition, and if further detention is not necessary to prevent a failure of justice. Release of a material witness may be delayed for a reasonable period of time until the deposition of the witness can be taken pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure," 18 U.S.C. 3144. In response to objections that the authority had been misused, H.R. 3199 as reported by the House Judiciary Committee required Justice Department reports on use of the authority in a grand jury context. The provision was dropped before the bill was taken up. The version sent to the President after passage had no such provision. S. 1739 would rewrite section 3144, among other things, establishing explicit and more demanding standards for arrest and detention and imposing explicit time limitations on detention. This is an abridged version of CRS Report RL33077, Arrest and Detention of Material Witnesses: Federal Law In Brief, by [author name scrubbed], without footnotes, most citations to authority, or appendixes.

Literary power couple Jonathan Safran Foer and Nicole Krauss have legally separated. Foer, author of “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close,” and Krauss, whose most recent novel was “Great House,” married in 2004 and drove aspiring Brooklyn writers to fits of jealously when they put their Park Slope home up for sale for $14.5 million last October. But a rep confirmed that they “split amicably about a year ago.” Foer then bought a Boerum Hill brownstone eight months ago. Krauss initially stayed in the six-bedroom, 7,670-square-foot townhouse, but has moved out and is living near her ex. “[They] have chosen to live in close proximity in order to raise their children,” the rep added. The Park Slope home didn’t sell but is being re-listed with a different broker. The breakup was so quiet, the pair, once dubbed “the too-successful-to-stomach physical embodiment of literary Brooklyn” by New York magazine, was included in April on a Huffington Post list of “kickass literary power couples” with F. Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald and Vladimir and Véra Nabokov. ||||| It’s common to think of great writers as congenital loners -- the iconic isolated genius too egotistical or socially inept to have fulfilling personal relationships. If a writer does have a spouse or partner, we imagine they would choose someone wholly different from themselves, preferably someone entirely uninterested in writing so that the genius can work undisturbed. Yet, as The Guardian observed in 2007, despite the competitiveness and jealousy that may arise when two writers fall in love, literary-minded people tend to be drawn to each other. Whether it’s two brilliant authors or an author and an insightful editor/advisor, astute literary minds have always found ways to each other, and these pairings aren’t always disastrous. In fact, sometimes these partnerships result in even greater artistic productivity. These 13 couples, though not always personally stable or successful, likely produced even better work due to their unions: Vladimir Nabokov and Véra Nabokov: Vladimir Nabokov’s classic works such as Lolita and Pale Fire have entranced generations of readers. While Lolita was met with considerable controversy for its “obscene” and “pornographic” content, Nabokov himself was quite straight-laced and conservative. He was married to Véra for over 50 years, and they were constantly together. Moreover, his wife was a brilliant woman whose significant contributions to his oeuvre are easy to overlook, but ultimately undeniable. She was his first reader, helping to polish and perfect the flawless prose for which Nabokov is famous. She conducted his negotiations with publishers. She occasionally filled in for him as a lecturer at Cornell during his tenure there. Above all, she was an ardent champion of his work, pushing him to publish Lolita rather than consign an early draft to an incinerator, as he threatened to do during a fit of frustration. Without Véra, Vladimir’s authorial career might have looked quite different, and possibly far less distinguished. George Eliot and George Henry Lewes: George Eliot’s genius as a novelist has been firmly established over the past century and a half, but one person believed in her well before that -- her partner, George Henry Lewes. An accomplished author himself, Lewes worked as a philosopher and critic as well as publishing some fiction. However, Lewes was no egomaniac; despite his own literary career, he was happy to foster the authorial talents of his partner in a time when women's careers were rarely taken seriously. During the many years they lived together (they were never able to marry due to Lewes’s inability to obtain a divorce from his first wife), he encouraged her to write. She began to compose novels after their relationship began, and during their partnership she wrote such masterpieces as Middlemarch and Silas Marner. His own novels suffered by comparison, but he continued to have a robust career as a philosopher throughout their relationship. At that time, it surely took a very secure man to remain supportive as his literary fame was eclipsed by that of his female partner, but Lewes and Eliot managed to maintain a wonderful relationship that lasted until his death. F. Scott Fitzgerald and Zelda Sayre Fitzgerald: F. Scott and Zelda’s famously tumultuous relationship dominates the public’s image of Zelda. While F. Scott is fondly remembered for The Great Gatsby and other novels, Zelda’s reputation rests on her struggles with mental illness. Their relationship was troubled by jealousy, bitter fights, and a shared wild lifestyle, but Zelda’s presence did more to fuel Fitzgerald’s writing than to smother it. He frequently lifted excerpts from Zelda’s diary (uncredited) to include in his fiction, and this casual plagiarism eventually led to a deep resentment on her part. However, her support was often valuable to his writing career. Despite festering anger about his theft of her work, she tacitly allowed his drawing on her writing for his celebrated books, insisted on the title The Great Gatsby over some of his dreadful other options (Trimalchio in West Egg?!), and defended his legacy after his early death. The same can’t be said of him, however; Fitzgerald was brutally critical of her novel, Save Me the Waltz, and forced her to rewrite it so he could use shared material in his book Tender Is the Night instead. Despite the volcanic and frequently destructive nature of their marriage, it remains one of the most remarkable literary unions in recent memory. Virginia Woolf and Leonard Woolf: Like Lewes, Leonard Woolf was not merely the helpmeet of a brilliant partner. He might more accurately be described as a Renaissance man, dabbling skillfully in writing, editing, politics, and business throughout his life, though none of his work has been well remembered. Virginia’s talent was more concentrated and more uncommon; during their marriage she published modernist classics including To the Lighthouse and Mrs. Dalloway. And while Leonard had his own fine career, he also sustained Virginia through an adulthood that included a bitter struggle with depression and mental illness, providing her with the stability she needed to continue working. The pair founded Hogarth Press, which published not only Virginia’s work but also books by T.S. Eliot and other associates. When Virginia tragically died by suicide, she left a heartwrenching note for Leonard that expresses the great strength she found in their marriage: “What I want to say is I owe all the happiness of my life to you. You have been entirely patient with me and incredibly good... I don't think two people could have been happier than we have been.” Joan Didion and John Gregory Dunne: Though Joan Didion’s star now shines brighter than that of her late husband, both halves of this famous marriage were great literary talents. Both distinguished themselves as novelists and essayists, as well as screenplay composers. Dunne once told The New York Times that he and Didion were each other’s “first reader, absolutely.'' After Dunne’s death, Didion wrote a memoir about her grieving process entitled The Year of Magical Thinking, which quickly attained classic status in the memoir genre and eloquently depicted a shared writing life that sustained both their careers. Didion writes of reading together, sharing honest criticism, and even writing down a note for his current project at dinner because he’d forgotten to bring his usual notecards. Of their complete lack of competitiveness and sense of shared purpose in marriage, she writes: “There was nothing I did not discuss with John... I did not always think he was right nor did he always think I was right but we were each the person the other trusted.” Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre: Both were giants in the world of letters, particularly philosophy, and their highly unconventional partnership spanned decades. The later part of their relationship was not sexual and both engaged in many other affairs, yet they maintained a romantic bond that centered around an intellectual and emotional intimacy unmatched by any of their other liaisons. They told each other everything about their other flings -- often in contemptuous and dismissive language -- and developed a pattern of sharing lovers, as Beauvoir began seducing her teenage students and then passing them along to Sartre. Their relationship was often seemingly held together by the cruel, even predatory way they treated other intimates. However, personal faults aside, both published seminal works of philosophy and fiction and shared an intellectually stimulating partnership throughout most of their lives. It’s hard to think of a more equally imposing literary couple than Sartre and Beauvoir. Percy Bysshe Shelley and Mary Shelley: Percy and Mary’s marriage was not always stable, but their staunch support of each other’s writing was crucial to both of their accomplishments and enduring prestige. Mary’s most famous work, Frankenstein, was conceived of and largely written while the Shelleys were summering in Geneva with Lord Byron and a party of friends. Her story of a patched-together, reanimated corpse was thought up in response to a challenge from Byron that each member of the party write their own ghost story, and Percy encouraged her to expand Frankenstein into a full novel, and also offered editorial feedback. Wrote Mary in later years, “But for his incitement, it would never have taken the form in which it was presented to the world." After Percy’s early death, Mary promoted his reputation as a poet; she maintained a vibrant writing career and frequently cited his poetry in her own work, and, in addition, edited it and pushed for its publication. Stephen King and Tabitha King: Stephen and Tabitha are a literary power couple with a literary power family. The King family is bursting at the seams with successful writers; both of their sons have also published books. The Kings have been married since 1971, and both have published multiple novels. Though Stephen King’s reputation and output has far exceeded his wife’s, her nine novels also garnered positive attention. Moreover, Tabitha has played the often unsung but invaluable role of the supportive spouse. When Stephen first began writing his breakout hit Carrie, he felt he couldn’t write convincingly from a girl’s perspective and threw out the first pages he’d drafted. Tabitha urged him to keep trying, aiding him throughout the process of getting inside the mind of a woman. Without her insight, Stephen’s glorious career as a horror writer might never have taken off. Jonathan Safran Foer and Nicole Krauss: The marriage of these all-star novelists inspires jealousy amongst the literati -- and curiosity. These two prefer to keep the details of their union under wraps, but we do know that they live together in Brooklyn, have two children, and publish finely crafted, critically acclaimed, and commercially successful novels. Is there anything they DON’T have going for them? The pair married in 2004, in between the publications of each writer’s first and second novels. Though they rarely speak publicly about their relationship or how much they rely on each other during the writing process, there is a family resemblance between their books that suggests a mutual influence. Zadie Smith and Nick Laird: Zadie Smith’s husband has said he “discovered” her, as they met when Nick Laird read and admired her submission for a short story anthology he was editing. Both were in their second year at Cambridge, and they became close friends and, several years later, a couple. The two are now married and have two children. Though she rocketed to literary fame in her 20s, early in their friendship they competed for the same writing prize and were a part of the same crowd of budding student authors, and Laird edited her breakout debut White Teeth. Now Laird may seem to struggle with being in Smith’s shadow, but he’s emerged as a talented novelist and prize-winning poet in his own right. And while being married to such a celebrity can’t always be easy, he and Smith have made it work splendidly, supporting and editing each other’s writing as well as occasionally collaborating. With two such talents pulling for each other, it’s not surprising to see that each has continued to blossom as a writer. Michael Chabon and Ayelet Waldman: These two prolific writers have no particular reticence about sharing their personal lives with the public. Both have written books detailing their parenting experiences, and Waldman has stirred up controversy by asserting that she loves her husband more than she loves their children. In her Modern Love column making this claim, Waldman describes the couple as “desperately, ardently in love.” The couple has four children and co-parent equally, but both also have vibrant writing careers. Chabon is famous for his literary fiction, including The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay and Telegraph Avenue, while Waldman has written lighter mystery fare as well as several more literary novels. With Waldman’s Love and Treasure, a novel centered around the looting of Hungarian Jews during the Holocaust, recently released, the Chabon-Waldman juggernaut shows no signs of slowing down. Allen Ginsberg and Peter Orlovsky: Allen Ginsberg, a celebrated poet and leading member of the Beat Generation, met Peter Orlovsky in 1954. The two fell in love and remained partners until Ginsberg’s death in 1997. Ginsberg rose to fame in the mid-’50s with the publication of his seminal work “Howl,” a poem deemed obscene at the time due to its rough language but also celebrated by critics for its virtuosity. Meanwhile, Ginsberg urged Orlovsky, who had considered himself a poet, to begin writing. While he never became a literary powerhouse on the level of Ginsberg, he went on to publish his work and receive grant money for his poetry projects. These two writers were central to the Beat movement that altered the course of American literature. Their sometimes-rocky relationship was open to allow affairs with other men and women, but their bond to each other held through over 40 years of what both considered to be a “marriage.” Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) and Olivia Clemens: Mark Twain, or Samuel Clemens, met Olivia Langdon in 1867. Very early in their courtship, Clemens escorted Langdon to a reading by Charles Dickens, setting an appropriately bookish tone for the rest of their relationship. They married in 1870, and Olivia Clemens became her husband’s editor, assisting him with finishing his books and articles. Though frail and frequently in ill health, Olivia was well-educated and intelligent, making her an ideal spouse for a prominent author. She also offered a strongly moral and female viewpoint, influencing Clemens to tone down the irreverence of his work and add a dash of seriousness and delicacy to his later writing. Her edits contributed to his post-marriage oeuvre garnering even more respect and acclaim, and she continued to give feedback on his work until her death in 1904.

Jonathan Safran Foer and Nicole Krauss, the couple once described as "the too-successful-to-stomach physical embodiment of literary Brooklyn," split up about a year ago, their rep confirms. The couple, married in 2004, is now legally separated. Foer bought a Brooklyn brownstone about eight months ago and they put their Park Slope home on the market for $14.5 million last October; Krauss is living near Foer so that they can raise their kids together, a rep tells Page Six, calling the split amicable. Guess this means they shouldn't have been included on the Huffington Post's April list of "kickass literary power couples" ... which did specifically mention how private they are.

The superstar with multiple Oscar nominations has everything: a brilliant career, a partner he wants to marry and, in "Moneyball," a seeming disaster he turned into a masterpiece. Still, Hollywood's producer-actor confesses to earlier bouts of depression and a relentless need to question just about everything (himself included): "This idea of perpetual happiness is crazy and overrated." Try to set up an interview with Brad Pitt, and you instantly plunge into his almost Dada-esque world. After all, where do you go? A restaurant rendez­vous would devolve into a scrum of gawkers and gapers; his suggestion that we meet at this reporter's office creates such a stir among jaded journalists, it is rapidly nixed; and Pitt's house in the Hollywood Hills is apparently out of bounds, reserved for his partner, Angelina Jolie, and their six kids -- and those inquiring minds eager to know about a decapitated head found nearby only days before. PHOTOS: Brad Pitt's THR Cover Shoot: The Outtakes So it is, like participants in the witness protection program, that we find ourselves ensconced in a 14th-floor suite at Hollywood's W Hotel this Jan. 20 -- chosen because Pitt's Cadillac Escalade can make a quick in-and-out to avoid the paparazzi thirsting to behold him. Pitt doesn't blame them. Media reports surfaced hours earlier that police had interviewed his bodyguard about human limbs scattered near the Hollywood sign. Still, he can't help being bemused. "I was watching CNN, and they said, 'Brad Pitt's home!' and, 'Brad Pitt's bodyguard!' " he laughs in disbelief. "I'm like: 'Why? Why?' " The report is nonsense, of course: His security chief happened to pass a policeman who asked if Pitt's surveillance cameras had recorded anything strange, which led to CNN's proclamation: "Police interview Brad Pitt's bodyguard, search Hollywood Hills for more body parts." PHOTOS: Brad Pitt's Most Memorable Movies Such is the life of a megawatt star, though Pitt has learned to handle it. Rarely ruffled and polite to a fault, he shrugs it all off, leaning casually against a window and revealing a previously unnoticed tattoo on the inside of his forearm. It's an outline of Otzi the Iceman, found frozen in the Alps in 1991, some 5,300 years after his death. Next to him, a series of numerals specify the height of the General Sherman Tree, a giant sequoia in Central California. Beside that, there's an inscription in French: absurdité de l'existence -- the absurdity of life. Pitt knows something about this. He's a man, after all, who can make $10 million to $15 million a film and has starred in such pictures as The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Fight Club and Legends of the Fall -- work vastly enhanced by his growing stature as a producer, which flowered in 2011 with Palme d'Or winner The Tree of Life and the near-masterpiece Moneyball, a movie he saved from the clutches of death. PHOTOS: The Hollywood Reporter Cover Stories But he's also Pitt the Celebrity, not once but twice half of the most famous couple alive -- first through his marriage to Jennifer Aniston, then through his relationship with Jolie. Despite a quarter-century as an actor, this Pitt has overshadowed the actor-producer and perhaps factors into his never having won an Oscar, which might change this year thanks to his multiple nominations -- two for acting in and producing Moneyball and probably a third as a producer of Tree of Life (the Academy has yet to determine which producers qualify). "It's a great honor," he says later. "And Tree of Life! I'm doubly excited because we felt we were all but forgotten." (On Jan. 27, the Academy did not give producing credit to Pitt on The Tree of Life for the film's best picture nomination.) This is the glory, but fame and its consequences have left him conflicted, he acknowledges -- though conflict runs through Pitt like a river, to adopt the title of one of his acclaimed films. STORY: Pitt as Producer: When the Oscar Nominated Actor Goes Off Camera "I've always been at war with myself, for right or wrong," he admits. "I don't know how to explain it more. There's that constant argument going on in your head about this or that. It's universal. Some people are better at dealing with it, and they sleep with no pain -- not pain, arguments. I've grown quite comfortable with being at war." His words are symptomatic of the thoughtfulness Pitt brings to everything he embraces. He's a man far deeper than most people know -- more intelligent, curious and intellectually restless. PHOTOS: 2012 Academy Awards: The Nominees He talks about the books he's reading, Charles Bracelen Flood's Grant and Sherman: The Friendship That Won the Civil War and A.J. Baime's Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans. He discusses the architects he has worked with to develop low-income housing in New Orleans; the marvel of Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove; his struggle to learn French (which he speaks "comme ci, comme ça"); and his love for Egon Schiele, an Austrian artist deemed "decadent" by the Nazis, whose style came to mind when he first saw that image of Otzi. Even when we broach the subject of Jodi Kantor's new book The Obamas, which describes Pitt as "awkward" in a meeting with the president ("I probably was -- you don't want to impose on a busy man," he says), he's more interested in Obama than himself, particularly whether the commander in chief has stopped smoking, as Pitt would dearly like to do. While backing Obama, he nonetheless was glued to the Republican debate Jan. 19. "I'm an Obama supporter, no question," he says. "But it doesn't mean there's nothing to learn from the other side." All his life, Pitt has learned from the other side. That's what led him to make a leap of non-faith when he rejected his Southern Baptist upbringing. "I grew up very religious, and I don't have a great relationship with religion," he reflects. "I oscillate between agnosticism and atheism." He oscillates, too, on the subject of whether he'll get married, and it's clear Pitt has shifted from his promise that this won't happen until gay marriage is legalized. "We'd actually like to," he says of his seven-year partner, Jolie, "and it seems to mean more and more to our kids. We made this declaration some time ago that we weren't going to do it till everyone can. But I don't think we'll be able to hold out. It means so much to my kids, and they ask a lot. And it means something to me, too, to make that kind of commitment." Has he asked Jolie to marry him? "I'm not going to go any further," says Pitt. "But to be in love with someone and be raising a family with someone and want to make that commitment and not be able to is ludicrous, just ludicrous." It's an unexpected confession for a man generally rather private. Indeed, throughout our conversation I'm surprised by his willingness to discuss almost anything -- from religion to relationships to Republicans -- always in a manner that seems temperate and respectful, possibly shadowed by the awareness of how far he's moved away from the thinking of his youth. "If you look at where Brad came from and charted the transformations he has realized, you'd recognize this is a person who's staged multiple revolutions in his life and career," says Moneyball director Bennett Miller. "There's a revolutionary spirit there." Pitt resists that notion at first. Then the next day he calls to say he has lain awake late into the night, mulling Miller's words. "There were many revolutions," he agrees. [pagebreak] ♦♦♦♦♦ The idea of making a movie about math, as Pitt jokingly describes Moneyball, is one of them. PHOTOS: Behind the Scenes of 'Moneyball' With Brad Pitt The project began its long journey five years ago, when Sony Pictures co-chairman Amy Pascal showed Pitt Michael Lewis' 2003 nonfiction book about baseball team GM Billy Beane and the statistics wunderkind who helped him transform the Oakland Athletics. At the time, writer Stan Chervin and director David Frankel (The Devil Wears Prada) were developing it with a decidedly comedic touch. Pitt looked at the screenplay, and at Beane himself, and wanted to go in a different direction: "I read the book, and this idea of second chances and how we sometimes let ourselves be rated too much by others -- we put so much emphasis on a paycheck or what a magazine says -- made me think, 'Oh my God, there's something much bigger here.' " He offered to leave the film with Frankel, but the director graciously departed, allowing Pitt to develop the story as he saw fit. Not a baseball fan (though he says he loves sports, especially football and soccer), it was the nuances of Beane's character that intrigued him. And so, working with producers Michael De Luca and Rachael Horovitz, he brought on Steven Zaillian (Schindler's List) to script and asked his friend Steven Soderbergh (Ocean's Eleven) to direct. Pitt comes alive recollecting the enthusiasm he felt at getting them all on board, literally rubbing his hands with glee, but after Soderbergh reworked Zaillian's screenplay, Sony had second thoughts. "We were supposed to leave on a Sunday to start shooting, and Steven handed it in on a Wednesday or Thursday, and the studio was not feeling good," says Pitt. "It's not that they didn't like the idea; they did not like the price" -- about $60 million. PHOTOS: 'Moneyball' Premiere in Oakland What happened next has been amply recounted: how Pascal pulled the plug; how she gave Soderbergh and Pitt several days to shop the project; how everybody passed. "Nobody wanted to buy disgraced goods," he adds. "It was dead." But Pitt refused to let it die, calling Pascal and urging her to stick with the movie. "There would be no Moneyball without him," says producer Scott Rudin. "He saved it single-handedly, and he deserves the credit for its existing at all." Pitt now approached Miller, the relatively untested director who had made only one feature, 2005's Capote (along with the 1998 documentary The Cruise), and who flew from New York to meet him, sitting with the star in a modernist house on his compound, surrounded by tools and models and outlines for his architectural ventures. VIDEO: Q&A with 'Moneyball' actors Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill Pitt was cautious, given that Miller had made nothing since Capote. "It's usually a warning sign when a director doesn't work for many years," he explains, "but it's because he's so choosy. The fact he had such an investment in the material -- which was apparent in our first meeting -- was a big green light for me." Now he had to persuade the studio. "There was a lot of disagreement about where this should go," he admits. With Aaron Sorkin brought in to rewrite while Zaillian moved on to The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, and with Rudin added as overseer, Pitt and Miller reworked every element during the following nine months. "We talked a lot about documentarians and 1970s films and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest -- and how the character in that movie is the same beast at the end. That was relevant, because some people involved wanted to have a big epiphany and change, which wasn't true to life." The filmmakers resisted attempts to reduce Beane's journey to the "arc" of a conventional Hollywood script. "I had some sleepless nights," says Pitt. "It was not without its pressure." His determination to buck tradition continued even when he began preparing to shoot the film, having long conversations with Beane and hanging out to talk ball with the players. It carried into the shoot, when Pitt backed Miller's decision to use long shots rather than close-ups, letting them play without quick-cutting, an "elegance" Pitt admires. None of this was accidental; none of it would have been possible without Pitt's willingness to challenge authority. "I do have a kind of knee-jerk reaction to go the other way than I'm supposed to," he notes slyly. The result is a best picture nomination, along with the one for Tree of Life, which Pitt also made through Plan B Entertainment, the companyhe runs with Dede Gardner. Together, they showPitt the producer and Pitt the star workingspectacularly in tandem, with a boldness and depth nobody could have imagined when he started acting some 25 years ago. Says one friend, "He's fully matured into a man." [pagebreak] ♦♦♦♦♦ Born in Oklahoma, Pitt grew up in Springfield, Mo., the son of a trucking company worker and an educator, with two younger siblings. "This was Huckleberry Finn country, Mason-Dixon Line, where televangelism was born," he recalls. It gave him a certain mistrust of "government and any power that may be above us and could oppress us; but that mistrust transcends into anything not like us -- that's the flip side, the not so nice side" he's proud to have overcome. Pitt's father, William, rose from the bottom of his company to the very top. "My dad came from nothing, an outhouse in the middle of winter, walking to school, and was really determined to give us what he didn't have." As for his mother, Jane, "She's very, very loving -- very open, genuine, and it's hilarious because she always gets painted in the tabloids as a she-devil. There's not an ounce of malice in her. She wants everyone to be happy." Pitt says he has aspects of both: "I can be naive like my mom sometimes, but I'm like my father. Every film I do, there's some connection to my dad, though my father's got a toughness. He's probably tougher than I am." Growing up, despite his fondness for them, he started to question his parents' religion and the environment he had known. "I always knew I was leaving," he says. "I didn't know where I was going, but I knew there was so much more to see and learn. I was always looking out and beyond -- and movies were a big part of that for me. Film shows you other [paths]." He remembers going to the local drive-in with his family, sitting on the hood of the car on "really humid, hot summer nights," eating homemade popcorn because they couldn't afford the concessions, then sneaking into 1977's Saturday Night Fever and "howling" when he saw the family gathered around the table. Pitt also describes being overwhelmed by 1969's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. "This idea of loss, when they get killed at the end and they're gone, just shattered me" -- an awareness of death that lingers and influenced his choice of tattoo. But film was not a career option, so he majored in journalism at the University of Missouri. Then, right before graduation, "it just struck me: I was done." Two weeks before earning his degree, with $325 he'd made from working on his father's loading dock, he drove to California in a beat-up car and stayed in the Burbank home of a family friend. He didn't even tell his parents he was planning to act; he said he was going to investigate Pasadena's Art Center College of Design. He remained in the Burbank apartment for a month. "It was me and a Thai maid who couldn't speak English," he says. "I stopped immediately and went to McDonald's, had a meal, got the trades, and by the end of the week I was doing extra work and pretty excited about it." Soon, he was acting, with a four-episode stint on Dallas. But Pitt truly galvanized the public in his role as the abs-gifted grifter who seduces Geena Davis in 1991's Thelma & Louise. With that simple sequence, every agent and executive knew a major star was born. The course he took, however, was never predictable. Rather than follow the safe route of appearing in evident blockbusters, he opted for a wide range of projects, largely driven by their helmers. "Look at those directors he's worked with -- Terrence Malick, Soderbergh, Robert Redford, David Fincher, Quentin Tarantino and the Coen brothers. They all know just how good he really is," says Pascal. "People think of him as an actor, and he's so much more." While Pitt's star ascended with 1992's A River Runs Through It, 1994's Legends of the Fall and 1995's Seven, his personal life declined, even following his 2000 marriage to Aniston. "I got really sick of myself at the end of the 1990s: I was hiding out from the celebrity thing; I was smoking way too much dope; I was sitting on the couch and just turning into a doughnut; and I really got irritated with myself," he says. "I got to: 'What's the point? I know better than this.' " Pitt wrestled with dark thoughts: "I used to deal with depression, but I don't now, not this decade -- maybe last decade. But that's also figuring out who you are. I see it as a great education, as one of the seasons or a semester: 'This semester I was majoring in depression.' I was doing the same thing every night and numbing myself to sleep -- the same routine: Couldn't wait to get home and hide out. But that feeling of unease was growing and one night I just said, 'This is a waste.' " His comfort level already had been shaken during a prolonged trip to Yugoslavia for the filming of 1988's The Dark Side of the Sun, before "ethnic cleansing" (the subject of Jolie's In the Land of Blood and Honey). Even then, "They were talking about it and you could see the hatred. It was like the Hatfields and McCoys -- as soon as they heard a name, it put them on the other side of the fence, and that left an indelible mark on me." So did a trip to Casablanca, Morocco, in the mid-to-late 1990s, "where I saw poverty to an extreme I had never witnessed before, and we talked about inequality and health care, and I saw just what I felt was so unnecessary, that people should have to survive in these circumstances -- and the children were inflicted with a lot of deformities, and things that could have been avoided had become their sentence. It stuck with me." Almost overnight, he decided something had to give. "I just quit. I stopped grass then -- I mean, pretty much -- and decided to get off the couch." Not one readily to discuss such intimate things -- "probably one of my faults is that I don't go to this wealth of knowledgeable people I have around me; I don't do that enough, and it's part of the Southern thing of not wanting to show weakness" -- he nonetheless reached beyond his inner circle. "I sought out Bono and sat down with him a few times and got involved in some of the stuff he was doing. But it all started before that. It started with private acts," which he doesn't define. Inevitably this led him to Jolie, with whom he starred in 2005's Mr. & Mrs. Smith. While the tabloids gloat about her effect on Pitt, the two were drawn to each other by corresponding concerns. "That may have been one of the things that brought us together," Pitt reasons. "Certainly, I've met very few people more dedicated than she is. She is always studying issues, daily. She has such compassion for the people she works with." He found the same compassion growing within himself, especially in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, which hit him hard as he'd grown to love New Orleans, where he'd spent three months filming 1994's Interview with the Vampire. "The first thing that rang wrong to me was when it was being called an act of God," he says with an unusual flare of rage. "And it wasn't an act of God. It was an act of human failure and marginalizing people and the areas that contain these people." Despite being told, "Don't go near it" -- particularly the devastated Ninth Ward -- Pitt felt "there was a responsibility to make it right, which was not being answered wholly, so I decided to make that a focal point and help families return home -- and in the process we started discovering the inadequacies in low-income housing, that it actually keeps a family trapped at a low-income level. There are a lot of shoddy appliances that drive up utility bills to hundreds and hundreds of dollars, and that can make or break a family." Through his Make It Right Foundation, created in 2007, Pitt began building environmentally friendly homes at a competitive price. He organized 21 architectural firms to construct 150 single-family houses and duplexes in New Orleans and gave millions in donations. He marvels at the result, having seen poor families living healthy lives with manageable bills. "It's remarkable," he says, "and now we want to take what we've learned and expand to other parts of the U.S. and abroad." Pitt is currently developing projects in Newark, N.J., and a tuberculosis clinic in Ethiopia -- and that's just a fraction of what he and Jolie do. The Jolie-Pitt Foundation has given millions to charities including SOS Children's Villages, Community Foundation of the Ozarks and Naankuse Wildlife Sanctuary in Namibia, among others. The Chronicle of Philanthropy estimates Jolie and Pitt donated more than$8.5 million in 2006 alone. As one executive familiar with their nonprofit work notes, "You have no idea how much money they give away. It's millions and millions and most people never even hear about it." [pagebreak] ♦♦♦♦♦ What they hear about instead is the Jolie-Pitt brood, and Pitt is at his most passionate when speaking of his kids. Having children, he says, has been "the most grounding thing." Would he have more? "We haven't closed the book on it. There's a really nice balance in the house right now, but if we see the need and get that lightning bolt that says, 'We can help this person; we could do something here,' then absolutely." It was while carrying Vivienne -- one of his children, many adopted, whose ages range from 3 to 10 -- that Pitt fell and hurt his knee, causing him to walk with the cane his friend George Clooney spoofed during the Golden Globes. It wasn't a skiing accident, contrary to reports. "I think George went down the line, making things up," Pitt laughs. "I was just walking in our backyard, on a hill, carrying my daughter, and I slipped -- and it was those parental instincts: me or her. And she's fine." The cane is nowhere to be seen today, and he jokes about how his children kept stealing it until he gave them canes of their own. He still wears a leg brace, its outline visible under his gray pants, and can talk in great detail about how "I just tweaked this MCL [medial collateral ligament] -- I got a whole tutorial. I know all about the knee." He'll wear the brace another month before commencing physical therapy. As for the children, they're home-schooled because "we travel a lot. We were with a program that we could plug in internationally. But it wasn't the same standard everywhere, and we wanted to be able to tailor something to our kids; they're such individuals." It's partly because of them that he's learning French, and also because of that need he has to keep reaching for more. "I'm frustrated going to other countries and not being able to converse with everyone, and we're trying to spend some time in Europe and use that as a hub," he says. "I want my kids to have the gift of other languages; it wasn't an emphasis where I grew up. But those synapses close down -- they're fused shut and I'm trying like mad to open them again." [pagebreak] ♦♦♦♦♦ These interests and passions can pull him in a million directions, and he admits to occasional indecisiveness, an area where he points out Jolie's influence. "She's very quick, she's very decisive -- and that's had a great effect on me. It's her decisiveness that I have so much respect for." Jolie's unseen presence makes itself felt throughout our conversation, and his love for her is unmistakable. But the notion that she's somehow reshaped this highly thoughtful man is a myth -- at least, any more than he's reshaped her. Like her, he wants to do work that survives; like her, he is committed to the world at large. Unlike her, he claims to have no gift for the gab. "My great frustration is, I can't explain what I'm trying to explain!" he sighs, throwing up his hands. "I've got the vocabulary of a public school education and the grammar of an eighth-grader." It's not true, not the tiniest bit, but just one aspect of a man constantly questioning himself, only "satisfied in not being satisfied." In his life and in his work, he is forever stretching boundaries -- as he will in his upcoming films World War Z and Twelve Years a Slave. The former, based on the Max Brooks book about a global zombie war -- and the first of a planned franchise -- drew him because "I thought it was an interesting experiment. I thought, 'Can we take this genre movie and use it as a Trojan horse for social-political problems?' " The latter, to be filmed by Shame helmer Steve McQueen, tells the story of "a free black man in the north who is kidnapped and sold into slavery in the South. I'm only doing a small cameo, but it stars Michael Fassbender and Chiwetel Ejiofor and there've been very few movies about slavery, certainly that had the impact of Roots." Having such an impact is at the heart of everything he does, and it's much more important to him than conventional happiness. "This idea of perpetual happiness is crazy and overrated, because those dark moments fuel you for the next bright moments; each one helps you appreciate the other," he says. "We are all searching for meaning in our lives, love and betterment for ourselves and those around us." PITT'S FAVORITE FILMS: Pitt can cite shot by shot from Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, but it's the films of the 1970s that most influenced his Moneyball. ||||| The new issue of Hollywood Reporter features the double (maybe triple) Oscar threat as he opens up about his career (the brutal fight to save "Moneyball"), fame (and his depression in the '90s), President Obama, and plans to make partner Angelina Jolie his wife. Try to set up an interview with Brad Pitt, and you instantly plunge into his almost Dada-esque world. After all, where do you go? A restaurant rendez-vous would devolve into a scrum of gawkers and gapers; his suggestion that we meet at this publication’s office creates such a stir among jaded journalists, it is rapidly nixed; and Pitt’s house in the Hollywood Hills is apparently out of bounds, reserved for his partner, Angelina Jolie, and their six kids. So, The Hollywood Reporter executive editor, features, Steven Galloway found himself feeling like a participant in the witness protection program, ensconced in a 14th-floor-suite at Hollywood's W Hotel Jan. 20, because Pitt’s Cadillac Escalade can make a quick in-and-out to avoid the paparazzi thirsting to behold him.On this particular morning media reports surfaced revealing that police had interviewed his bodyguard about human limbs scattered near the Hollywood sign. And, he can’t help being bemused. “I was watching CNN, and they said, ‘Brad Pitt’s home!’ and, ‘Brad Pitt’s bodyguard!’ ” he laughs in disbelief. “I’m like: ‘Why? Why?’ ”The report is nonsense, of course: His security chief happened to pass a policeman who asked if Pitt’s surveillance cameras had recorded anything strange, which led to CNN’s proclamation: “Police interview Brad Pitt’s bodyguard, search Hollywood Hills for more body parts.” PHOTOS: Outtakes from Brad Pitt's THR Cover Shoot Still Pitt remains unfazed. During an afternoon together, Pitt was thoughtful, pensive and discussed everything from his politics (supports President Obama) and religion (he veers between agnosticism and atheism), to his relationship with parter of over six years, Angelina Jolie and their six kids. As for his two (maybe three depending on what the Academy decides his producer status is for Tree of Life) Oscar nominations for Moneyball (both for acting and producing), "It's a great honor," Pitt tells THR. (On Jan. 27, the Academy did not give producing credit to Pitt on The Tree of Life for the film's best picture nomination.) Some of the other personal details he shared in THR's cover story: PHOTOS: The Hollywood Reporter Cover Stories WHY SCOTT RUDIN CREDITS HIM AS MONEYBALL'S SAVIOR The project began its long journey five years ago, when Sony Pictures co-chairman Amy Pascal showed Pitt Michael Lewis' 2003 nonfiction book about baseball team GM Billy Beane and the statistics wunderkind who helped him transform the Oakland Athletics. At the time, writer Stan Chervin and director David Frankel (The Devil Wears Prada) were developing it with a decidedly comedic touch. Pitt looked at the screenplay, and at Beane himself, and wanted to go in a different direction: "I read the book, and this idea of second chances and how we sometimes let ourselves be rated too much by others -- we put so much emphasis on a paycheck or what a magazine says -- made me think, 'Oh my God, there's something much bigger here.' " He offered to leave the film with Frankel, but the director graciously departed, allowing Pitt to develop the story as he saw fit. Not a baseball fan (though he says he loves sports, especially football and soccer), it was the nuances of Beane's character that intrigued him. And so, working with producers Michael De Luca and Rachael Horovitz, he brought on Steven Zaillian (Schindler's List) to script and asked his friend Steven Soderbergh (Ocean's Eleven) to direct. PHOTOS: Brad Pitt's Most Memorable Movies Sony had second thoughts. "We were supposed to leave on a Sunday to start shooting, and Steven handed it in on a Wednesday or Thursday, and the studio was not feeling good," says Pitt. "It's not that they didn't like the idea; they did not like the price" -- about $60 million. What happened next has been amply recounted: how Pascal pulled the plug; how she gave Soderbergh and Pitt several days to shop the project; how everybody passed. "Nobody wanted to buy disgraced goods," he adds. "It was dead." But Pitt refused to let it die, calling Pascal and urging her to stick with the movie. "There would be noMoneyball without him," says producer Scott Rudin. "He saved it single-handedly, and he deserves the credit for its existing at all." PITT ON POLITICS Jodi Kantor’s new book The Obamas describes Pitt as “awkward” in a meeting with the president. “I probably was — you don’t want to impose on a busy man,” he says. But, he’s more interested in Obama himself, particularly whether the commander in chief has stopped smoking, as Pitt would dearly like to do. While backing Obama, he nonetheless was glued to the Republican debate Jan. 19. “I’m an Obama supporter, no question,” he says. “But it doesn’t mean there’s nothing to learn from the other side.” PITT ON RELIGION All his life, Pitt has learned from the other side. That’s what led him to make a leap of non-faith when he rejected his Southern Baptist upbringing. “I grew up very religious, and I don’t have a great relationship with religion,” he reflects. “I oscillate between agnosticism and atheism.” Pitt says differences over religion make his parents, William and Jane, "sad, but I have parents that love me unconditionally." PHOTOS: Behind the Scenes of 'Moneyball' With Brad Pitt DEPRESSION, POT AND HOW HE GOT THROUGH IT While Pitt’s star ascended with 1992’s A River Runs Through It, 1994’s Legends of the Fall and 1995’s Seven, his personal life declined.“I got really sick of myself at the end of the 1990s: I was hiding out from the celebrity thing; I was smoking way too much dope; I was sitting on the couch and just turning into a doughnut; and I really got irritated with myself,” he says. “I got to: ‘What’s the point? I know better than this.’ ” Pitt wrestled with dark thoughts: “I used to deal with depression, but I don’t now, not this decade — maybe last decade. But that’s also figuring out who you are. I see it as a great education, as one of the seasons or a semester: ‘This semester I was majoring in depression.’ I was doing the same thing every night and numbing myself to sleep — the same routine: Couldn’t wait to get home and hide out. But that feeling of unease was growing and one night I just said, ‘This is a waste.’ PHOTOS: 'Moneyball' Premiere in Oakland A trip to Casablanca, Morocco, in the mid-to-late 1990s, “where I saw poverty to an extreme I had never witnessed before, and we talked about inequality and health care, and I saw just what I felt was so unnecessary, that people should have to survive in these circumstances — and the children were inflicted with a lot of deformities, and things that could have been avoided had become their sentence. It stuck with me.” Almost overnight, he decided something had to give. “I just quit. I stopped grass then — I mean, pretty much — and decided to get off the couch.” GETTING MARRIED: "WE'D LIKE TO" He oscillates, too, on the subject of whether he’ll get married, and it’s clear Pitt has shifted from his promise that this won’t happen until gay marriage is legalized. “We’d actually like to,” he says of his seven-year partner, Jolie, “and it seems to mean more and more to our kids. We made this declaration some time ago that we weren’t going to do it till everyone can. But I don’t think we’ll be able to hold out. It means so much to my kids, and they ask a lot. And it means something to me, too, to make that kind of commitment.” Has he asked Jolie to marry him? “I’m not going to go any further,” says Pitt. “But to be in love with someone and be raising a family with someone and want to make that commitment and not be able to is ludicrous, just ludicrous.” VIDEO: Q&A with 'Moneyball' actors Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill MAYBE MORE KIDS -- EVEN IF THEY STEAL HIS CANE Having children, he says, has been “the most grounding thing.” Would he have more? “We haven’t closed the book on it. There’s a really nice balance in the house right now, but if we see the need and get that lightning bolt that says, ‘We can help this person; we could do something here,’ then absolutely.” It was while carrying Vivienne — one of his children, many adopted, whose ages range from 3 to 10 — that Pitt fell and hurt his knee, causing him to walk with the cane his friend George Clooney spoofed during the Golden Globes. It wasn’t a skiing accident, contrary to reports. “I think George went down the line, making things up,” Pitt laughs. “I was just walking in our backyard, on a hill, carrying my daughter, and I slipped — and it was those parental instincts: me or her. And she’s fine.” The cane is nowhere to be seen today, and he jokes about how his children kept stealing it until he gave them canes of their own. STORY: Pitt as Producer: When the Oscar Nominated Actor Goes Off Camera HIS NEXT BIG PROJECTS World War Z, based on the Max Brooks book about a global zombie war — and the first of a planned franchise — drew him because “I thought it was an interesting experiment. I thought, ‘Can we take this genre movie and use it as a Trojan horse for social-political problems?’ ” Twelve Years a Slave, to be filmed by Shame helmer Steve McQueen, tells the story of “a free black man in the north who is kidnapped and sold into slavery in the South. I’m only doing a small cameo, but it stars Michael Fassbender and Chiwetel Ejiofor and there’ve been very few movies about slavery, certainly that had the impact of Roots.” Read the cover story in full here

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie seem to spend most of their time telling magazines that no, they're still not married, but in a new interview in the Hollywood Reporter, Pitt sings a slightly different tune. "We’d actually like to" get married, Pitt admits, "and it seems to mean more and more to our kids. We made this declaration some time ago that we weren’t going to do it 'til everyone can. But I don’t think we’ll be able to hold out. It means so much to my kids, and they ask a lot. And it means something to me, too, to make that kind of commitment." He also, of course, addresses the topic of having more children. "We haven’t closed the book on it," he says. "There’s a really nice balance in the house right now, but if we see the need and get that lightning bolt that says, 'We can help this person; we could do something here,' then absolutely." (Recent tabloid reports claim Jolie is pregnant again.) And, as he already did so controversially last year, Pitt once again slammed his life in the 1990s. "I got really sick of myself," he says. "I was hiding out from the celebrity thing; I was smoking way too much dope; I was sitting on the couch and just turning into a doughnut; and I really got irritated with myself." Read the full interview here.

A resident looks out from the second floor as floodwaters surround his apartment complex Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Storms have dumped more than a foot of rain in the Houston area, flooding dozens... (Associated Press) A resident looks out from the second floor as floodwaters surround his apartment complex Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Storms have dumped more than a foot of rain in the Houston area, flooding dozens of neighborhoods and forcing the closure of city offices and the suspension of public transit.... (Associated Press) HOUSTON (AP) — More than a foot of rain fell Monday in parts of Houston, submerging scores of subdivisions and several major interstate highways, forcing the closure of schools and knocking out power to thousands of residents who were urged to shelter in place. Sylvester Turner, mayor of the nation's fourth-largest city, told residents to stay home to fend off a weather system he called "stubborn." More rain was projected over the next two to three days. Rain gauges in parts of Harris County, which includes most of Houston, showed water levels approaching 20 inches since late Sunday night. The Harris County Flood Control District reported 13 bayous and creeks out of their banks. Turner said seven bayous within Houston were topped. No deaths or injuries were immediately reported. Several shelters were established for people forced from their homes. At least 100 people taken from apartment complexes in the north part of the city were being sheltered at a shopping mall. "There areas of the city that have not flooded for a long period of time that have flooded," Turner said. Harris County Judge Ed Emmett, the county's chief administrator, said more than 1,000 homes were flooded. "This is a rain even that's very significant, no question about it," he said. "Many of those homes haven't flooded before." Classes were cancelled for the Houston Independent School District's 215,000 students, Texas' largest public school district, and most other schools throughout the metropolitan area. National Weather Service meteorologist Tom Bradshaw said about 70 Houston subdivisions flooded. At least two interstates — I-10, the main east-west freeway, and I-45, the major north-south freeway — were underwater near downtown. "We've seen those go under water before and they're under water again," Emmett said. Other major freeways, plus some feeder roads leading to the highways, were shut off by high water. Emmett warned drivers that even if they were able to get through on the highways, "When it's time to get off, you may not be able to." The storms were part of a wide weather system that left warnings and watches through Tuesday morning for Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, Tyler-Longview and as far east as Texarkana. One TV reporter in Houston helped to rescue a man who drove his car into a flooded underpass. In the incident captured on video Monday (http://abc13.co/1S5l5VC ), KTRK reporter Steve Campion yells, "Dude, you've got to get out of the car!" The man opens the passenger door and crawls out into the water as the reporter yells: "Leave the car! Swim!" The driver swims toward Campion, who wades out into the waist-deep water and extends his hand. As the car slowly sinks under water, the driver tells Campion that he's OK and that he didn't think the water was so deep. Houston, at near sea level and known for its "gumbo" soft soil, is no stranger to flooding from torrential rains, tropical storms and hurricanes. Last Memorial Day, heavy rains caused severe flooding in the southwest parts of the city. Bayous there were quickly rising and the mayor urged residents to prepare for another round of floods. "We have had a lot of rain to fall in a short period of time and it is taxing our system," he said. "If you're not presently flooded along one of these bayous, I can tell you things remaining as they are, if conditions do not change, that those areas more than likely will be flooded." The city reported more than 115 emergency water rescues by mid-morning Monday and evacuation of at least 30 apartment complexes. CenterPoint Energy said nearly 110,000 of its customers were without power. George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston reported more than 410 flights canceled. William P. Hobby Airport, the city's other major airport, canceled more than 135 flights. "This situation will remain around for much of the day," the mayor said. "We're asking people to exercise caution and common sense." ||||| EMBED >More News Videos Elderly man rescued from car Just before Eyewitness News reporter Steve Campion was to go live in our breaking news coverage of the historic flooding across the Houston area, he saw a man crawling out of his vehicle in the high water behind him on Studemont Street.Campion yelled to the man, "Dude, you've got to get out of the car. You've got to get out!Suddenly, the car began to sink with the man inside, his door thankfully open.Campion yelled to the man, "Leave the car, swim!"Campion walked to the man and helped get to dry land. Campion asked him, "Sir are you OK? Watch your step, sir.""I'm OK," the man replied.Campion asked, "Did you not just think the water was that deep?"The man said, "I did not think it was that deep."The man, who later identified himself as Andy, tried to turn back to the vehicle, but Campion said, "You've got to leave the car."Moments later, the car slipped below the water's surface.Watch the full video of the live TV rescue in the video player above.VIDEO: Elderly man rescued from carTo our viewers: TURN AROUND, DON'T DROWN! The National Weather Service reports each year, more deaths occur due to flooding than from any other thunderstorm related hazard. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that over half of all flood-related drownings occur when a vehicle is driven into hazardous flood water. The next highest percentage of flood-related deaths is due to walking into or near flood waters. People underestimate the force and power of water. Many of the deaths occur in automobiles as they are swept downstream. Of these drownings, many are preventable, but too many people continue to drive around the barriers that warn you the road is flooded. A mere six inches of fast-moving flood water can knock over an adult. It takes just 12 inches of rushing water to carry away a small car, while 2 feet of rushing water can carry away most vehicles. It is never safe to drive or walk into flood waters. ||||| 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 ||||| Image 1 of / 53 Caption Close Image 1 of 53 ABC13 reporter Steve Campion helps a motorist to safety early April 18, 2016. The motorist was stuck in a submerged vehicle near Studemont Street in Houston's Heights neighborhood. Campion was able to help the man to safety just seconds before his car became fully submerged. less ABC13 reporter Steve Campion helps a motorist to safety early April 18, 2016. The motorist was stuck in a submerged vehicle near Studemont Street in Houston's Heights neighborhood. Campion was able to help the ... more Image 2 of 53 People evacuate from Arbor Court Apartments in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. People evacuate from Arbor Court Apartments in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Melissa Phillip, Houston Chronicle Image 3 of 53 A woman holds her child as firefighters evacuate people from the flooding in the Greenspoint area in dump trucks Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. A woman holds her child as firefighters evacuate people from the flooding in the Greenspoint area in dump trucks Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle Image 4 of 53 A child in a life preserver sits in a dump truck to be evacuated from Arbor Court Apartments in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. A child in a life preserver sits in a dump truck to be evacuated from Arbor Court Apartments in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Melissa Phillip, Houston Chronicle Image 5 of 53 Lindsay Ellard becomes emotional as she embraces her 16-month-old son Henry, after they were evacuated from their Meyerland home, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. "This is his second flood like this," she said. less Lindsay Ellard becomes emotional as she embraces her 16-month-old son Henry, after they were evacuated from their Meyerland home, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. "This is his second flood like this," she ... more Photo: Jon Shapley, Houston Chronicle Image 6 of 53 Residents of ther Arbor Court apartments evacuate their flooded apartment complex in the Greenspoint area on Monday, April 18, 2016. Residents of ther Arbor Court apartments evacuate their flooded apartment complex in the Greenspoint area on Monday, April 18, 2016. Photo: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle Image 7 of 53 Locals work to rescue up to 70 horses along Cypresswood Drive near Humble along Cypress Creek, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Locals work to rescue up to 70 horses along Cypresswood Drive near Humble along Cypress Creek, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Mark Mulligan, Houston Chronicle Image 8 of 53 A day after a major flood workers clean up debris as residents of the Saldo Apartments try to get their vehicles running Tuesday, April 19, 2016, in Houston. A day after a major flood workers clean up debris as residents of the Saldo Apartments try to get their vehicles running Tuesday, April 19, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Steve Gonzales, Houston Chronicle Image 9 of 53 People sit on top of their truck that got stranded on Seminar Drive in the Greenspoint area when they attempted to help rescue people from the flooding Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. People sit on top of their truck that got stranded on Seminar Drive in the Greenspoint area when they attempted to help rescue people from the flooding Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle Image 10 of 53 Edgar Peneda, of Roadway Construction, inspects a collapsed retention wall along eastbound U.S. Highway 290 at Huffmeister after heavy rain on Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston, Texas. Edgar Peneda, of Roadway Construction, inspects a collapsed retention wall along eastbound U.S. Highway 290 at Huffmeister after heavy rain on Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston, Texas. Photo: Gary Coronado, Houston Chronicle Image 11 of 53 Jessie Jackson opens the blinds to look at his flooded apartment in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. Jackson woke up at 2 a.m. to a foot and a half of water in his room. Jessie Jackson opens the blinds to look at his flooded apartment in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. Jackson woke up at 2 a.m. to a foot and a half of water in his room. Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle Image 12 of 53 Walter Norman holds his head in his hands as flood waters and oil float past his apartment in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. Walter Norman holds his head in his hands as flood waters and oil float past his apartment in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle Image 13 of 53 A Volkswagen Beatle sits in water under on Studemont Street in Houston. Photos of onlookers at Buffalo Bayou checking out flooding on Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. A Volkswagen Beatle sits in water under on Studemont Street in Houston. Photos of onlookers at Buffalo Bayou checking out flooding on Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Elizabeth Conley, Houston Chronicle Image 14 of 53 A Houston Police Humvee drives through flood water on Greens Road as Tina Hartfield and Veda Gould are evacuated Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. A Houston Police Humvee drives through flood water on Greens Road as Tina Hartfield and Veda Gould are evacuated Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle Image 15 of 53 Easie Arceneaux, center, stands at a makeshift food station as she helps prepare sandwiches for people being evacuated from the flooding in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. Easie Arceneaux, center, stands at a makeshift food station as she helps prepare sandwiches for people being evacuated from the flooding in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle Image 16 of 53 Mayor Sylvester Turner visits the flooded Arbor Court apartment complex as it is evacuated in the Greenspoint area on Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Mayor Sylvester Turner visits the flooded Arbor Court apartment complex as it is evacuated in the Greenspoint area on Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle Image 17 of 53 Robert Davis holds his head in his hand as he sits at the Red Cross Shelter at the MO Campbell Educational Center after his apartment was flooded Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. Robert Davis holds his head in his hand as he sits at the Red Cross Shelter at the MO Campbell Educational Center after his apartment was flooded Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle Image 18 of 53 Residents of ther Arbor Court apartments evacuate their flooded apartment complex in the Greenspoint area on Monday, April 18, 2016. Residents of ther Arbor Court apartments evacuate their flooded apartment complex in the Greenspoint area on Monday, April 18, 2016. Photo: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle Image 19 of 53 LaFonda Mosley, left, and Donna Clark sit in a rescue boat as they evacuate their flooded apartment complex on Monday, April 18, 2016. LaFonda Mosley, left, and Donna Clark sit in a rescue boat as they evacuate their flooded apartment complex on Monday, April 18, 2016. Photo: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle Image 20 of 53 As Greens Bayou starts to crest the banks a man rescues a armadillo in Houston, Monday, April 18, 2016. Heavy rains caused flooding throughout the Houston area. (Steve Gonzales/ Houston Chronicle) As Greens Bayou starts to crest the banks a man rescues a armadillo in Houston, Monday, April 18, 2016. Heavy rains caused flooding throughout the Houston area. (Steve Gonzales/ Houston Chronicle) Photo: Steve Gonzales, Houston Chronicle Image 21 of 53 Meital Harari pushes water out of the back door at her Meyerland home, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Her family rode out the storm at a nearby house because her daughter has nightmares from the Memorial Day floods. less Meital Harari pushes water out of the back door at her Meyerland home, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Her family rode out the storm at a nearby house because her daughter has nightmares from the Memorial ... more Photo: Jon Shapley, Houston Chronicle Image 22 of 53 A pile of wet carpeting and sheetrock sit outside of the Orr home in the Hearthstone subdivision of Copperfield, that got about a foot of water, Monday, from the Horsepen Creek, Tuesday, April 19, 2016, in Houston. less A pile of wet carpeting and sheetrock sit outside of the Orr home in the Hearthstone subdivision of Copperfield, that got about a foot of water, Monday, from the Horsepen Creek, Tuesday, April 19, 2016, in ... more Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle Image 23 of 53 People evacuate from Arbor Court Apartments in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. People evacuate from Arbor Court Apartments in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Melissa Phillip, Houston Chronicle Image 24 of 53 Briggs Morehouse, 5, pulls his bike out of a flooded Memorial Parkway on Monday, April 18, 2016. Photos of onlookers at Buffalo Bayou checking out flooding on Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Briggs Morehouse, 5, pulls his bike out of a flooded Memorial Parkway on Monday, April 18, 2016. Photos of onlookers at Buffalo Bayou checking out flooding on Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Elizabeth Conley, Houston Chronicle Image 25 of 53 The Harris County Medical Examiners investigate and removed at least one body from a car at the 610 North ramp near Westpark Drive, after drivers got trapped in flood waters in that location, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. less The Harris County Medical Examiners investigate and removed at least one body from a car at the 610 North ramp near Westpark Drive, after drivers got trapped in flood waters in that location, Monday, April 18, ... more Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle Image 26 of 53 Friends wait for word as the Harris County Medical Examiners office remove at least one body from a car at the 610 North ramp near Westpark Drive, after drivers got trapped in flood waters in that location, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. less Friends wait for word as the Harris County Medical Examiners office remove at least one body from a car at the 610 North ramp near Westpark Drive, after drivers got trapped in flood waters in that location, ... more Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle Image 27 of 53 People evacuate from Arbor Court Apartments in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. People evacuate from Arbor Court Apartments in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Melissa Phillip, Houston Chronicle Image 28 of 53 People are evacuated from the flooding in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. People are evacuated from the flooding in the Greenspoint area Monday, April 18, 2016 in Houston. Photo: Michael Ciaglo, Houston Chronicle Image 29 of 53 A truck is still partially submerged along the Beltway 8 feeder road near Hardy Road, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. A truck is still partially submerged along the Beltway 8 feeder road near Hardy Road, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Mark Mulligan, Houston Chronicle Image 30 of 53 Residents of ther Arbor Court apartments evacuate their flooded apartment complex in the Greenspoint area on Monday, April 18, 2016, in The Woodlands. Residents of ther Arbor Court apartments evacuate their flooded apartment complex in the Greenspoint area on Monday, April 18, 2016, in The Woodlands. Photo: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle Image 31 of 53 Residents of ther Arbor Court apartments evacuate their flooded apartment complex in the Greenspoint area on Monday, April 18, 2016, in The Woodlands. Residents of ther Arbor Court apartments evacuate their flooded apartment complex in the Greenspoint area on Monday, April 18, 2016, in The Woodlands. Photo: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle Image 32 of 53 Flood waters from the Buffalo Bayou flow under the Fannin Street Bridge at Allen's Landing and the Harris County Jail, downtown, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Aerial view from the office of Robert Soard, Chief of Staff of the Harris County Attorney. less Flood waters from the Buffalo Bayou flow under the Fannin Street Bridge at Allen's Landing and the Harris County Jail, downtown, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Aerial view from the office of Robert Soard, ... more Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle Image 33 of 53 Residents of ther Arbor Court apartments evacuate their flooded apartment complex in a refrigerator on Monday, April 18, 2016. Residents of ther Arbor Court apartments evacuate their flooded apartment complex in a refrigerator on Monday, April 18, 2016. Photo: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle Image 34 of 53 Taylor McKenzie holds on to his dog, Big Black, as he walks out of high water in the Timber Lakes Timber Ridge subdivision on Monday, April 18, 2016, in The Woodlands. Taylor McKenzie holds on to his dog, Big Black, as he walks out of high water in the Timber Lakes Timber Ridge subdivision on Monday, April 18, 2016, in The Woodlands. Photo: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle Image 35 of 53 Annabella Zoller, 6, plays with her dad Jason and mother Jessica in floodwaters near Brays Bayou in the Meyerland area, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Annabella Zoller, 6, plays with her dad Jason and mother Jessica in floodwaters near Brays Bayou in the Meyerland area, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Jon Shapley, Houston Chronicle Image 36 of 53 Houston Fire Department uses watercraft to navigate the flooded Meyerland neighborhood along West Loop S FWY at Jason St. on Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston, Texas. Houston Fire Department uses watercraft to navigate the flooded Meyerland neighborhood along West Loop S FWY at Jason St. on Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston, Texas. Photo: Gary Coronado, Houston Chronicle Image 37 of 53 Memorial Drive at Studemont flooded by the over flowing Buffalo Bayou, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Memorial Drive at Studemont flooded by the over flowing Buffalo Bayou, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle Image 38 of 53 Chip and Kathy McDaniel are taken by Jersey Village firefighters in a rescue boat to a nearby transport truck to be taken to a shelter at Jersey Village Baptist Church Monday, April 18, 2016. The couple along with their dog, P.J., went into their attic as the water rose. less Chip and Kathy McDaniel are taken by Jersey Village firefighters in a rescue boat to a nearby transport truck to be taken to a shelter at Jersey Village Baptist Church Monday, April 18, 2016. The couple along ... more Photo: Melissa Phillip, Houston Chronicle Image 39 of 53 Jordan Sanchez picks up debris while cleaning up after her home was flooded in the Timber Lakes Timber Ridge subdivision on Monday, April 18, 2016, in The Woodlands. Jordan Sanchez picks up debris while cleaning up after her home was flooded in the Timber Lakes Timber Ridge subdivision on Monday, April 18, 2016, in The Woodlands. Photo: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle Image 40 of 53 Traffic works its way northbound on I-45 North at Quitman as White Oak Bayou comes out of it's banks Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Traffic works its way northbound on I-45 North at Quitman as White Oak Bayou comes out of it's banks Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle Image 41 of 53 Craig Baldwin pauses outside his house while trying to clean up after the home was flooded in the Timber Lakes Timber Ridge subdivision on Monday, April 18, 2016, in The Woodlands. Craig Baldwin pauses outside his house while trying to clean up after the home was flooded in the Timber Lakes Timber Ridge subdivision on Monday, April 18, 2016, in The Woodlands. Photo: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle Image 42 of 53 Devan Horn, who used to work at Cypress Trails, works to bring horse Boomer across the flooded field and over a fence to safety on Cypresswood Drive along Cypress Creek, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Boomer bucked Horn off at one point and the two began flowing swiftly down into the creek before a rope was thrown to the pair and a boat came to their aid. Horn was picked up by the boat, and Boomer made it safely out of the water on the other side of the bridge over Cypress Creek. less Devan Horn, who used to work at Cypress Trails, works to bring horse Boomer across the flooded field and over a fence to safety on Cypresswood Drive along Cypress Creek, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. ... more Photo: Mark Mulligan, Houston Chronicle Image 43 of 53 Locals work to rescue up to 70 horses along Cypresswood Drive near Humble along Cypress Creek, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Locals work to rescue up to 70 horses along Cypresswood Drive near Humble along Cypress Creek, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Mark Mulligan, Houston Chronicle Image 44 of 53 Locals work to rescue up to 70 horses along Cypresswood Drive near Humble along Cypress Creek, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Locals work to rescue up to 70 horses along Cypresswood Drive near Humble along Cypress Creek, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Mark Mulligan, Houston Chronicle Image 45 of 53 Richard Lopez and Allie Hairford-Siemens hold the reins of three horses as they guide from the back of truck the horses through flood water along Cypress Rosehill Rd. in Cypress Monday, April 18, 2016. The three horses were the last horses to be removed from stalls at Cypress Equestrian Center, 17110 Cypress Rosehill. However more than 30 horses remain in a pasture. less Richard Lopez and Allie Hairford-Siemens hold the reins of three horses as they guide from the back of truck the horses through flood water along Cypress Rosehill Rd. in Cypress Monday, April 18, 2016. The ... more Photo: Melissa Phillip, Houston Chronicle Image 46 of 53 Devan Horn reacts in joy as she finds out that a horse she had untangled from where it was stuck in flooded waters had made it to safety on Cypresswood Drive along Cypress Creek, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. less Devan Horn reacts in joy as she finds out that a horse she had untangled from where it was stuck in flooded waters had made it to safety on Cypresswood Drive along Cypress Creek, Monday, April 18, 2016, in ... more Photo: Mark Mulligan, Houston Chronicle Image 47 of 53 Locals work to rescue up to 70 horses along Cypresswood Drive near Humble along Cypress Creek, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Locals work to rescue up to 70 horses along Cypresswood Drive near Humble along Cypress Creek, Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Mark Mulligan, Houston Chronicle Image 48 of 53 The flooded roadway of FM 529 underpass at highway 290 is shown Monday, April 18, 2016, near Jersey Village. The flooded roadway of FM 529 underpass at highway 290 is shown Monday, April 18, 2016, near Jersey Village. Photo: Melissa Phillip, Houston Chronicle Image 49 of 53 Josh Ludy carries belongings out of his flooded house in the Timber Lakes Timber Ridge subdivision on Monday, April 18, 2016, in The Woodlands. Josh Ludy carries belongings out of his flooded house in the Timber Lakes Timber Ridge subdivision on Monday, April 18, 2016, in The Woodlands. Photo: Brett Coomer, Houston Chronicle Image 50 of 53 Cars stranded in flood water at I-10 under Houston Avenue as White Oak Bayou comes out of it's banks Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Cars stranded in flood water at I-10 under Houston Avenue as White Oak Bayou comes out of it's banks Monday, April 18, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Karen Warren, Houston Chronicle Image 51 of 53 Linda Rodriguez, far right, along with other family members, react after seeing a white SUV, that is believed to belong to a 25-year-old family member, that was towed from the off ramp from the West Park Toll Way onto Post Oak Blvd. Tuesday, April 19, 2016, in Houston. The SUV was submerged in flood water caused by the recent storm. Tuesday, April 19, 2016, in Houston, Texas. less Linda Rodriguez, far right, along with other family members, react after seeing a white SUV, that is believed to belong to a 25-year-old family member, that was towed from the off ramp from the West Park Toll ... more Photo: Gary Coronado, Houston Chronicle Image 52 of 53 A woman (far right) who believes that a body being recovered in a vehicle near the Westpark Tollway and Loop 610 is comforted as she reacts to news from law enforcement, Tuesday, April 19, 2016, in Houston. A woman (far right) who believes that a body being recovered in a vehicle near the Westpark Tollway and Loop 610 is comforted as she reacts to news from law enforcement, Tuesday, April 19, 2016, in Houston. Photo: Mark Mulligan, Houston Chronicle

Houston has gotten nearly 20 inches of rain since Sunday night, and on Monday morning, an ABC13 reporter became part of the story as he was reporting on it, the Houston Chronicle reports. Steve Campion was with a camera crew in the Heights neighborhood when a man drove into the flood waters and opened his door, calling to the group for help, moments before his car became completely submerged. Campion waded over to the man and helped pull him to safety, all while live on video. The Chronicle notes that the man appeared "disoriented," and told Campion he didn't realize how deep the water was when he drove in. On the video, Campion can be heard wondering what the driver is doing and then urging him to get out of the car and swim away from it once the man opened the door. Campion had been tweeting from the scene and urging drivers to stay away, noting before the incident, "Just saw man climb out of his sunroof."

Nicaragua is a Central American nation bordering both the Caribbean sea and the Pacific ocean between Costa Rica and Honduras. Slightly smaller than the state of New York, Nicaragua has a population of roughly 5.4 million. With a per capita income level of $1,000 (2006), Nicaragua is classified by the World Bank as a lower middle income developing country. Nicaragua is still largely an agricultural country, but its non-traditional exports (textiles, tobacco products, vegetables, gold) have expanded rapidly in the last few years. Nicaragua's key development challenge is to boost growth rates to a level that can reduce poverty, which is especially severe in rural areas. Nicaragua has had a conflicted and anti-democratic past, dominated from 1936 until 1979 by the Somoza dictatorship. Anastasio Somoza and his two sons who succeeded him, though corrupt and authoritarian, were staunch anti-communists who maintained good relations with the United States. In 1979, the Somoza government was toppled by a revolution led by the Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN), a leftist guerrilla group that had opposed the regime since the early 1960s. That revolution resulted in the loss of some 50,000 lives. During the 1980s, Nicaragua was embroiled in a decade-long struggle between its leftist Sandinista government, which confiscated private property and maintained ties with rebel forces in neighboring El Salvador, and U.S.-backed counter-revolutionary forces. Since democratic elections were held in 1990, Nicaragua has adopted pro-market economic reforms, held free and fair elections, and worked toward building democratic institutions. Despite progress on those fronts, successive governments have made limited inroads in combating corruption and addressing the country's high levels of poverty and inequality. On January 10, 2007, Sandinista leader and former President Daniel Ortega was inaugurated to a five-year presidential term. Ortega's previous presidency (1985-1991) was marked by a civil conflict pitting the government against U.S.-backed "contras." Ortega, who had lost the last three presidential elections, won only 37.9% of the vote in the November 2006 elections, but Nicaraguan law allowed him to avoid a run-off vote since he was more than 5% ahead of the next closest candidate, Eduardo Montealegre, then head of the Nicaraguan Liberal Alliance (ALN). Ongoing disputes between powerful leaders, endemic corruption, and weak institutions have undermined the consolidation of democracy in Nicaragua. The 2006 elections followed more than a year of political tensions among then-President Enrique Bolaños, Ortega and the leftist Sandinista party, and allies of rightist former President Arnoldo Alemán. Alemán and Ortega, once longtime political foes, negotiated a power-sharing pact ("El Pacto") in 1998 that has since influenced national politics. In addition to a tendency to have caudillos like Ortega and Alemán dominate national politics, Nicaragua is known to have high levels of corruption. According to Transparency International's 2007 Corruption Perception Index, Nicaragua is one of ten Latin American countries where corruption is perceived as rampant. Currently, some opposition leaders are urging the Ortega government to publicly disclose how it is using the aid Nicaragua receives from Venezuela, including funds earned through the re-sale of Venezuelan oil bought on preferential terms through PetroCaribe. They are concerned that the president of Nicaragua's state-owned oil company, which distributes the Venezuelan oil, is also the treasurer of the Sandinista party. Finally, the politicization of government entities, including party influence over the judiciary, is an obstacle to governance in Nicaragua. Since no single party won an outright majority in Nicaragua's 90-member National Assembly in the November 2006 legislative elections, President Ortega and the Sandinistas (FSLN) must form alliances in order to enact legislation The FSLN has generally relied on an informal alliance with the Constitutionalist Liberal Party (PLC), dominated by jailed former President Alemán, to pass legislation. In December 2007, however, the PLC broke with the Ortega government by voting against its plan to increase the power of the country's Citizen Power Councils (CPCs), which are funded by the executive branch, over the existing municipal authorities. The PLC has since aligned with Eduardo Montealegre, who, until recently was head of the ALN, to contest the ruling FSLN and its allies in the November 2008 municipal elections. Those elections will test the strength of the FSLN, which currently holds 87 of the country's 153 municipalities. In 2008, the Ortega government faces the challenges of boosting the country's moderate growth rates (GDP growth was 2.9% in 2007) and reducing poverty. According to the World Bank, although overall poverty has declined in Nicaragua since the country's return to democracy (from 50.3% in 1993 to roughly 46% today), more than two-thirds of the rural population is impoverished. While Nicaragua made some progress towards development in the 1990s, much of those gains were reversed by the devastation wrought by Hurricane Mitch in 1998. As a result of sluggish growth rates, some social indicators for Nicaragua have shown little or no improvement since 1993. Nicaragua is highly dependent on foreign aid, which contributed 26% of its budget in 2006. It is also dependent on remittances sent from Nicaraguans living abroad, which totaled some $656 million in 2006 and accounted for 17% of the country's GDP. The official unemployment rate is about 5%, but underemployment is a major problem and some 60% of workers are employed in the informal sector, which doesn't provide social security and other benefits. The Ortega government has adopted a poverty reduction strategy and a 2008 budget in line with International Monetary Fund (IMF) recommendations. As a result, the IMF and the World Bank have cancelled roughly $200 million and $1.5 billion respectively in foreign debt owed by Nicaragua. President Ortega is expected to announce a development plan by mid-2008 that is likely to emphasize sustainable agro-industrial development. Obstacles to Nicaragua's growth prospects in 2008 will be the rising price of oil and the economic slowdown in the United States, which could affect trade and remittance flows. Some economists have also warned that if Ortega should engage in an increasingly radical or authoritarian manner, foreign investment in Nicaragua could decline. President Ortega is working with the United States and the IMF to boost the country's long-term prospects for economic development, but is also seeking aid from Iran and Venezuela to meet more immediate needs. Iran has pledged to invest in Nicaragua's ports, agricultural sector, and energy network, with Venezuela co-financing many infrastructure projects. Venezuela has promised to build a $3.5 billion oil refinery and to provide up to 10 million barrels of oil at preferential prices annually through the PetroCaribe program. Ortega shares an ideological affinity with President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and the other countries comprising the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) trade block (Cuba and Bolivia). President Ortega generally maintains good relations with neighboring countries in Central America, but his government has been embroiled in a serious border dispute with Colombia. In December 2007, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) upheld Colombia's sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés and Providencia, but the ICJ is still determining the official maritime boundaries between the two countries. Despite initial concerns about the impact of Ortega's November 2006 re-election on U.S.-Nicaraguan relations, the bilateral relationship, though tense at times, appears to be generally intact. One cause of tension has been President Ortega's tendency to vacillate between anti-U.S. rhetoric and reassurances that he will respect private property and pursue free-trade policies. In September 2007, Ortega denounced the United States in a speech before the United Nations as "the imperialist global empire." Rhetoric aside, Ortega's interest in cooperating with the United States has been reflected in his pledge to hand over 651 Soviet-made surface-to-air missiles in exchange for military and medical equipment. Ortega has continued cooperating with the IMF, which approved a new three-year poverty reduction package for Nicaragua in October 2007. His government is also implementing the CAFTA-DR. The United States provides significant foreign assistance to Nicaragua, and the two countries cooperate on counternarcotics, trade, and security matters. The United States responded to Hurricane Mitch in 1998 by granting Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to eligible Nicaraguan migrants living in the United States. In May 2007, the U.S. government extended the TPS of an estimated 4,000 eligible Nicaraguans through January 5, 2009. In response to Hurricane Felix, a category 5 hurricane that hit Nicaragua in September 2007, the United States provided hurricane assistance to Nicaragua to help with the recovery efforts. The United States provided Nicaragua with $50.2 million in foreign aid in FY2006 and $36.9 million in FY2007, while an estimated $28.6 million is being provided in FY2008. The Administration has also requested, but Congress has not yet considered, some $2 million in FY2008 supplemental assistance for Nicaragua as part of the Administration's Mérida Initiative to boost the region's capabilities to interdict the smuggling of drugs, arms, and people, and to support a regional anti-gang strategy. For FY2009, the Administration has requested $38 million for Nicaragua, not including P.L. 480 food aid. Nicaragua could also receive roughly $6.7 million of the $100 million in Mérida Initiative funds for Central America included in the FY2009 budget request. The FY2009 request includes increases in funds for security reform and combating transnational crime, democracy and civil society programs, and trade capacity building programs to help Nicaragua benefit from CAFTA-DR. In addition to traditional development assistance, Nicaragua benefits from its participation in the MCA, a presidential initiative that increases foreign assistance to countries below a certain income threshold that are pursuing policies to promote democracy, social development, and sustainable economic growth. In 2005, the Bush Administration signed a five-year, $175 million compact with Nicaragua to promote rural development. The compact, which entered into force in May 2006, includes three major projects in the northwestern regions of León and Chinandega. Those projects aim to promote investment by strengthening property rights, boost the competitiveness of farmers and other rural businesses by providing technical and market access assistance, and reduce transportation costs by improving road infrastructure. During a recent visit to Nicaragua, John Danilovich, director of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, asserted that, despite some political differences, he believes that the United States and Nicaragua can work together to combat poverty. U.S. democracy programs aim to reform government institutions to make them more transparent, accountable and professional; combat corruption; and promote the rule of law. The United States provided some $13 million to support the November 2006 elections in Nicaragua. Some 18,000 observers monitored the elections. Following the November 2008 municipal elections, USAID is expected to help increase the capacity and transparency of local governments. Other ongoing programs seek to increase citizen advocacy and the role of the media. U.S. officials have expressed some concerns regarding respect for human rights in Nicaragua. According to the State Department's March 2008 human rights report on Nicaragua, civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of security forces, but there were some reports of unlawful killings involving the police. Some of the most significant human rights abuses included harsh prison conditions, arbitrary arrests and detentions, and widespread corruption in and politicization of government entities, including the judiciary and the Supreme Electoral Council. Human rights problems related to labor issues include child labor and violation of worker rights in some free trade zones. In October 2007, Human Rights Watch asserted that Nicaragua's current ban on all abortions, which includes cases where the mother's life is at risk, has put pregnant women's health at risk. Nicaragua is a significant sea and land transshipment point for cocaine and heroin being shipped from South America to the United States, according to the State Department's February 2008 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report (INCSR). Trafficking occurs on both the country's Atlantic and Pacific coasts, with increasing trafficking occurring on the Pacific Coast since 2006. The INCSR report asserts that Nicaraguan law enforcement were "very successful" in their counternarcotics efforts in 2007. Seizures and arrests increased dramatically, with 153 kilograms of heroin and 13 metric tons of cocaine seized (compared to 23.4 kilograms of heroin and 9.72 metric tons of cocaine in 2006) and 192 traffickers arrested (up from 67). It also asserts that corruption, particularly within the judiciary, has been an obstacle to Nicaragua's counterdrug efforts. The Ortega Administration has asked the United States for more assistance to deal with drug gangs. The FY2009 budget request includes an increase in U.S. counternarcotics aid to Nicaragua. As noted above, other assistance could be provided through the proposed Mérida Initiative. Nicaragua's National Assembly approved the CAFTA-DR in October 2005 and passed related intellectual property and other reforms in March 2006. The agreement went into effect in Nicaragua on April 1, 2006. Compared to other CAFTA-DR countries, Nicaragua has attracted textile and apparel investors because of its relatively low wage costs. In addition, Nicaragua is the only CAFTA-DR country allowed to export a certain amount of apparel products composed of third country fabric to the United States duty-free. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Nicaragua totaled roughly $282 million in 2006, an 18.5% increase over 2005. In 2007, FDI rose again to some $335 million. CAFTA-DR has also helped to accelerate U.S.-Nicaraguan trade. In 2006, Nicaraguan exports to the United States totaled about $1.53 billion, up 29.2% from 2005. They rose again in 2007 to roughly $1.6 billion, with particularly strong growth in exports of apparel, sugar, coffee, cigars, cheese, and fruits and vegetables. For the same period, Nicaraguan imports from the United States rose 20.6% in 2006 to $752 million as compared to 2005, and by 18.5% in 2007 to $890 million. Key Nicaragua imports from the United States include machinery, grains, fuel oil, textile fabric, plastics, pharmaceuticals, and motor vehicles. Resolution of property claims by U.S. citizens has been a contentious issue in U.S.-Nicaraguan relations since the Sandinista regime expropriated property in the 1980s. The Nicaraguan government has gradually settled many claims through compensation, including the claims of 4,500 U.S. citizens. Fewer than 700 claims registered with the U.S. Embassy remain unresolved. The Ortega government's willingness to continue processing those claims was rewarded in July 2007 by the Administration's renewal of a waiver that allows Nicaragua to continue receiving U.S. foreign assistance despite the past expropriation of property owned by U.S. citizens.

Nicaragua, the second poorest country in Latin America after Haiti, has had a difficult path to democracy, characterized by ongoing struggles between rival caudillos (strongmen), generations of dictatorial rule, and civil war. Since 1990, Nicaragua has been developing democratic institutions and a framework for economic development. Nonetheless, the country remains extremely poor and its institutions are weak. Former revolutionary Sandinista leader, Daniel Ortega, was inaugurated to a new five-year presidential term in January 2007 and appears to be governing generally democratically and implementing market-friendly economic policies. The United States, though concerned about Ortega's ties to Venezuela and Iran and his authoritarian tendencies, has remained actively engaged with the Ortega Administration. The two countries are working together to implement the U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), control narcotics and crime, and promote economic development through the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA). Nicaragua is receiving some $28.6 million in U.S. assistance in FY2008 and could benefit from the proposed Mérida Initiative for Mexico and Central America. This report may not be updated.

Gregorio Orrostieta (right) from Kennett Square was charged Monday with strangling and beating his girlfriend, Karlie Hall, to death in her Millersville University dorm room early Sunday morning. A Kennett Square man was charged Monday with strangling and beating his girlfriend in her Millersville University dorm room early Sunday. Karlie Hall, 18, of Chadds Ford, was found dead in her room Sunday, police said, after a fight with Gregorio Orrostieta, 19. Orrostieta was charged with criminal homicide Monday afternoon in Lancaster County. An autopsy showed Hall, a freshman, died of strangulation and multiple traumatic injuries, county District Attorney Craig Stedman said at a news conference Monday. Prosecutors think Orrostieta waited for hours after Hall's death before calling 911 and faked attempts at CPR on Hall when emergency responders arrived, Stedman said. On Monday, students left flowers at a statue of the Millersville Marauder mascot in Hall's honor. It is the first on-campus homicide in university history, said Janet Kacskos, the school's director of communications. "We're quite a rural campus. Stuff like this isn't supposed to happen here," Kacskos said. Hall was found unresponsive in her room in Bard Hall around 5 a.m. Sunday by emergency personnel responding to Orrostieta's call. Orrostieta, a 2014 graduate of Kennett Consolidated High School who is not a Millersville student, told officers he had shoved Hall, causing her to fall to the ground and hit her head on a chair. He then gave her a "back hand" to her face, and she became unresponsive, according to the affidavit. The couple had gone to Hall's dorm room early Sunday after arguing at a party. Residents heard a commotion, and the hall's resident assistant knocked on the door around 2:30 a.m., Stedman said. No one answered. Orrostieta was smeared with blood when police arrived a few hours later, according to the criminal complaint. He was held by police on a charge of aggravated assault, a count that was replaced by homicide, said Assistant District Attorney Christopher Lechner. Orrostieta will be held in the Lancaster County Prison without bail pending a preliminary hearing, Stedman said. The couple had been dating for about 11 months, Stedman said Orrostieta told police. Stedman said the domestic violence case is "far from over," and his office plans to investigate the couple's history. Kenn Marshall, spokesman for the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, said this was only the second time in the last decade that a student died as the result of violence on a state college campus. The other was the 2012 death of Kutztown University student Christine McGhee of Bucks County, who was dragged from her ex-boyfriend's pickup truck. Counseling staff will be available to Millersville students all week. Therapy dogs will also be on campus Monday night, Kacskos said. "Our university community has suffered an unfathomable loss," Millersville president John Anderson wrote in a message to students and staff. "I ask that you join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to Karlie's family and friends." Hall's family has asked for privacy, Stedman said. Hall was a business administration major with a concentration in management, Kacskos said. Hall graduated from Unionville High School in June 2014. She was hardworking and a good sister to her twin, Kristen, said principal Paula Massanari. "The thing that always struck me was that I always saw her as a really devoted sister. You rarely saw one without the other," Massanari said. Hall was part of the rugby club, volunteered at a local animal shelter, and held a part-time job to save for college, Massanari said. Her Chadds Ford home is near the border of Delaware and Chester Counties. She listed Kennett Square as her hometown on her Facebook profile. Hall's older sister and mother both graduated from Unionville as well, Massanari said. "Their ties to this community run deep, and the school is devastated, obviously, by what happened to her," Massanari said. A vigil was scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday outside the Student Memorial Center on the Millersville campus. [email protected] 610-313-8205 @McDanielJustine ||||| Were there warning signs? NBC10's Rosemary Connors asks neighbors what they knew of Gregorio Orrostieta, the 19-year-old accused of killing his girlfriend in her Millersville University dorm room over the weekend. (Published Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2015) Could The Death of Millersville Student and Delco Native Been Avoided? The boyfriend of a Millersville University student who was found dead in her dormitory is accused of beating and strangling her. Nineteen-year-old Gregorio Orrostieta was charged with homicide Monday after an investigation revealed his girlfriend, Karlie Hall, died by strangulation and other traumatic injuries, police said. Hall died in her Bard Hall dorm room early Sunday. Police initially charged Orrostieta, of Kennett Square, Pennsylvania, with aggravated assault after he told them he and Hall, an 18-year-old Millersville freshman, got into a fight -- first at a party and then once the couple was alone inside her dorm room. The charges were upgraded Monday afternoon. Vigil Honors Murdered Millersville Student An emotional night on the Millersville University campus in Lancaster County. Students gathered to remember a student from our area, who was found dead in her dorm room over the weekend. Police now say Karlie Hall was murdered. Her boyfriend is now in custody. (Published Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2015) "As a result of Orrostieta's assault, Hall suffered serious bodily injury," reads the criminal complaint from university police. Police said Orrostieta had blood smeared on his face, blood on his hands and clothes, dried cuts on his forehead and scratches on his chest when officers interviewed him outside of Hall's dorm room around 5 a.m. Sunday. In his booking photo, blood is visible on Orrostieta's face. Orrostieta was kneeling over Hall, trying to administer CPR when officers entered the room and took over, said police. Medics pronounced Hall dead a short time later. Orrostieta initially told police Hall had gone into cardiac arrest and he had to perform CPR on her. Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman doesn't believe that's true however. "The CPR I believe was completely fake," Stedman said. "She had been dead for hours probably before that." Boyfriend of Dead College Freshman Admits Fight Got Physical Authorities in Lancaster County will hold a press conference on the death of Millersville University freshman Karlie Hall who was found dead in her dorm room on Sunday. Her boyfriend, Gregorio Orrostieta is being held on aggravated assault charges after he admitted he pushed Hall to the ground before she became unconscious. (Published Monday, Feb. 9, 2015) Prosecutors said the teen beat and strangled Hall, whose twin sister Kristen also attends Millersville. Orrostieta, who does not attend Millersville, told investigators Hall struck him during a verbal altercation at the party. Orrostieta said he and Hall made up and returned to her dorm room around 1:30 a.m. Sunday following the argument, the criminal complaint said. Back in the room, the fight reignited. Other students told police they heard the sound of the two fighting around 2:30 a.m., around the time when police believe Hall died. "Orrostieta admitted to shoving Hall hard enough to knock her onto the ground where she struck her head on a chair," read the affidavit. Orrostieta told investigators that his girlfriend became unresponsive after he gave her a "back hand" to her face. Millersville Student Dies, Boyfriend Behind Bars Gregorio Orrostieta, 19, was held in a Lancaster County Jail for aggravated assault after his girlfriend, 18 year-old Millersville student Karlie Hall was found dead in her dorm room over the weekend. NBC10's Katy Zachry reports. (Published Monday, Feb. 9, 2015) Police booked Orrostieta and a judge sent him to Lancaster County Prison on $1.5 million bail. University counseling staff and campus ministries will be available on campus to talk to students who need assistance. Millersville also announced a vigil in Hall's honor. A candlelight vigil will be held at 7 p.m. tonight at the SMC Promenade to honor the life of Karlie Hall - 1995-2015. — Millersville U (@millersvilleu) February 9, 2015 University president John Anderson expressed his sadness and condolences over the "unfathomable loss" of Hall. "I ask that you join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to Karlie’s family and friends," Anderson wrote on the university's website. "If you personally knew Karlie, please accept my heartfelt condolences at this most difficult time." Hundreds of students attended an outdoor vigil for Hall Monday night at Millersville, an 8,000-student state-owned university. Standing in the rain and holding candles, many of them wept as they sang two hymns and campus minister Dwayne Netzler prayed. Friends said Hall was a finance major who always appeared happy and often spent her free time going to the gym or feeding ducks at a campus pond. "I knew that the relationship wasn't that great," said Hall's friend, Trisha Faust, 19, of Emmaus. "It was on-again, off-again." Molly Gaetano, 19, of Pittsburgh, who lived two doors down from Hall on the second floor of the three-story dormitory, said she last spoke to her Friday. "She never talked bad about anyone. She was always smiling and cheerful," Gaetano said. A memorial with flowers and cards was set up at Hall's dorm room. Hall and her twin sister, Kristin, graduated from Unionville High School last June and went to Millersville together, Principal Paula Massanari said. The girls also have an older sister. Hall was a member of the school rugby club and gay-straight alliance, and she volunteered at an animal shelter, Massanari said. She was described in a college recommendation letter as a "hard-working" student, who was working a part-time job to help offset the cost of college. "This has certainly hit our school community very hard," Massanari said. "We are devastated by the loss." Copyright Associated Press / NBC 10 Philadelphia ||||| MILLERSVILLE, Pa. (AP) — The boyfriend of a college freshman found dead in her dorm room was charged Monday with homicide after an autopsy found she had been severely beaten and strangled, during a struggle in which a prosecutor said she "fought for her life." Millersville University students enter Bard Hall on the Millersville University campus in Millersville , Pa., Monday, Feb. 9, 2015. Police say a student, Millersville University freshman Karlie Hall,... (Associated Press) Bard Hall on the Millersville University campus in Millersville , Pa., is seen on Monday, Feb. 9, 2015. Police say a student, Millersville University freshman Karlie Hall, died in her room here early... (Associated Press) Police officers responding to a 911 call early Sunday from the boyfriend, Gregorio Orrostieta, 19, said they found him trying to administer CPR to Karlie Hall, 18, his own face, hands and jeans smeared with blood, his shirt ripped, his chest scratched and his forehead cut, a police affidavit said. Authorities believe the CPR was "completely fake," and that Hall had already been dead for hours when Orrostieta called them to Millersville University, claiming the young woman had suffered a heart attack, said Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman. Questioned by police, Orrostieta said he shoved Hall, causing her to fall and hit her head on a chair, and then gave her a "back hand" to the face, the affidavit said. But he made no mention of choking her. "He's responsible and we're going to hold him accountable," Stedman told a news conference to announce the homicide charge. He had been charged only with aggravated assault pending the autopsy. "She fought for her life," the prosecutor said. The dorm's video surveillance confirmed that no one else entered or left the room during the time when a struggle was heard in the dorm room. The couple, both from the Philadelphia suburbs, had been dating about 11 months. Orrostieta, of Kennett Square, is not a Millersville student. He was being held without bail. The prosecutor said he did not have a lawyer on record, and no one answered the door at his residence Monday afternoon. Orrostieta told police that he and Hall, 18, of Chadds Ford, had argued at a party Saturday night and she had hit him, the affidavit said. They made up before returning to the dorm at around 1:30 a.m. and arguing again, the affidavit said. Stedman declined to say if there was a history of abuse. Stedman said witnesses reported hearing yelling and the sound of furniture moving between 2 and 2:30 a.m., about the time authorities believe Hall was killed. The dorm's resident assistant knocked on the door, but no one answered and no further sound was heard, authorities said. Police found Hall unresponsive when they arrived at Bard Hall after getting the 911 call at about 5 a.m., authorities said. Asked about the resident assistant not calling police, Stedman said: "They're not criminal investigators. Their responsibility is ... to make sure there's no more disturbances going on." "It's something that we'll look at," he said while adding: "I don't want in any way anybody taking out of this press conference today that anybody's responsible for her death other than the defendant who's charged." University spokeswoman Janet Kacskos said the RA was awoken by other residents who heard the noise. After knocking and not getting any response, she figured they had "quieted down," Kacskos said. In a note to students, Millersville President John Anderson called Hall's death "unfathomable." "We've never had this happen. We're a pretty bucolic, rural campus. Very safe," Kacskos said. Hundreds of students attended an outdoor vigil for Hall Monday night at Millersville, an 8,000-student state-owned university. Standing in the rain and holding candles, many of them wept as they sang two hymns and campus minister Dwayne Netzler prayed, the Reading Eagle reported. Friends said Hall was a finance major who always appeared happy and often spent her free time going to the gym or feeding ducks at a campus pond. "I knew that the relationship wasn't that great," said Hall's friend, Trisha Faust, 19, of Emmaus. "It was on-again, off-again." Molly Gaetano, 19, of Pittsburgh, who lived two doors down from Hall on the second floor of the three-story dormitory, said she last spoke to her Friday. "She never talked bad about anyone. She was always smiling and cheerful," Gaetano said. A memorial with flowers and cards was set up at Hall's dorm room. Hall and her twin sister, Kristin, graduated from Unionville High School last June and went to Millersville together, Principal Paula Massanari said. The girls also have an older sister. Hall was a member of the school rugby club and gay-straight alliance, and she volunteered at an animal shelter, Massanari said. She was described in a college recommendation letter as a "hard-working" student, who was working a part-time job to help offset the cost of college. "This has certainly hit our school community very hard," Massanari said. "We are devastated by the loss." ___ Associated Press writers Sean Carlin and Maryclaire Dale in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

A 19-year-old has been charged with homicide in the death of his girlfriend, a freshman at Millersville University in Pennsylvania. Gregorio Orrostieta, who isn't a student at the school, told police he got in a verbal fight with Karlie Hall, 18, at a party, authorities say. He says she hit him. The fight reportedly resumed back in her dorm room early Sunday, where he is accused of having strangled and beaten her, NBC Philadelphia reports. "Orrostieta admitted to shoving Hall hard enough to knock her onto the ground, where she struck her head on a chair," according to an affidavit. After Orrostieta launched a "back hand" at Hall's face, she lost consciousness, he allegedly told police. He didn't acknowledge any choking, the AP reports. When investigators found Orrostieta in Hall's room, he was apparently trying to give her CPR. But the Lancaster County district attorney raises doubts: "The CPR I believe was completely fake," he says. Authorities believe Orrostieta had let hours pass before he called 911, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. Police say he had blood on his face and hands and his shirt was ripped, the AP notes. "She fought for her life," the DA says. The school, where Hall's twin sister was also a freshman, held a vigil last night. "We've never had this happen. We're a pretty bucolic, rural campus. Very safe," says university president John Anderson.

The purpose of the HUBZone program, which was established by the HUBZone Act of 1997, is to stimulate economic development, through increased employment and capital investment, by providing federal contracting preferences to small businesses in economically distressed communities or HUBZone areas. The types of areas in which HUBZones may be located are defined by law and consist of census tracts, nonmetropolitan counties, Indian reservations, redesignated areas (that is, census tracts or nonmetropolitan counties that no longer meet the criteria but remain eligible until after the release of the 2010 decennial census data), and base closure areas. To be certified to participate in the HUBZone program, a firm must meet the following four criteria: must be small by SBA size standards; must be at least 51 percent owned and controlled by U.S. citizens; principal office—the location where the greatest number of employees perform their work—must be located in a HUBZone; and at least 35 percent of the full-time (or full-time equivalent) employees must reside in a HUBZone. There are more than 14,000 HUBZone areas, and as of January 2009, 9,300 certified firms participated in the HUBZone program. More than 4,200 HUBZone firms obtained approximately $8.1 billion in federal contracts in fiscal year 2007. The annual federal contracting goal for HUBZone small businesses is 3 percent of all prime contract awards—contracts that are awarded directly by an agency. SBA relies on its map to publicize HUBZone areas and to determine, in part, whether firms are eligible for the program. Our June 2008 report found problems with SBA’s HUBZone map. First, the map included 50 metropolitan counties as difficult development areas that did not meet this or any other criterion for inclusion as a HUBZone area. As a result of these errors, from October 2006 through March 2008, federal agencies obligated about $5 million through HUBZone set-aside contracts to 12 firms located in these ineligible areas. In addition, we found that the HUBZone map had not been updated since August 2006. Our analysis of 2007 Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment data indicated that 27 additional nonmetropolitan counties should have been identified on the map, allowing qualified firms in these areas to participate in the program. Because firms are not likely to receive information on the HUBZone status of areas from other sources, firms in the 27 areas would have believed from the map that they were ineligible to participate in the program and could not benefit from contracting incentives that certification provides. In our June 2008 report, we recommended that SBA take immediate steps to correct and update the map and implement procedures to ensure that it is updated with the most recently available data on a more frequent basis. In response to our recommendation, SBA stated that, through a contract, the map was updated in September 2008. However, SBA has not implemented procedures to ensure that the map remains accurate. SBA officials stated it is currently re-engineering its internal processes, which include its mapping efforts, and plans to develop a competitive procurement that will include test plans and technical support for future map updates. Because SBA is in the early stages of both efforts, the map may not remain accurate. Therefore, if the map is not regularly updated, ineligible small businesses may be able to participate in the program, while eligible businesses may not be able to participate. In June 2008, we reported that the policies and procedures upon which SBA relies to certify firms provided limited assurance that only eligible firms participated in the HUBZone program. Specifically, we found that, for certification and recertification, firms self-reported information on their applications. Rather than providing specific guidance or criteria for when HUBZone program staff should request supporting documentation, SBA’s policy allowed the staff to determine what circumstances warranted a request for supporting documentation. Internal control standards for federal agencies require that agencies collect and maintain documentation and verify information to support their programs; however, we found that SBA requested documentation or conducted site visits of firms to validate the self-reported data in limited instances. Our analysis of the 125 applications submitted in September 2007 showed that SBA requested supporting documentation for 36 percent of the applications and conducted one site visit. As a follow-on to our previous fraud investigation, we also identified cases of fraud and abuse in the program and examined actions SBA has taken to establish an effective fraud prevention system; we are publicly reporting the results of this investigation today in a separate publication. To improve its ability to ensure that only eligible firms participate in the program, we recommended in our June 2008 report that SBA develop and implement guidance to more routinely and consistently obtain supporting documentation upon application and conduct more frequent site visits, as appropriate, to ensure that firms applying for certification are eligible. Subsequent to our report and testimony, SBA issued a desktop guide for analysts to use when they review applications. This guide provides examples of the types of documents to request and when to request them. In addition, since July 2008, SBA officials stated that they have been consistently collecting supporting documentation from each new applicant. However, the agency has not conducted more frequent site visits to verify the information firms submit. SBA officials stated that they do plan to conduct site visits of all HUBZone firms that received a contract in fiscal year 2007 during fiscal year 2009. As of March 2009, SBA conducted 7 site visits of those firms. Because of SBA’s limited progress, ineligible firms may still be able to participate in the HUBZone program and receive federal contracts based on their HUBZone certification. In our June 2008 report, we noted that SBA did not follow its own policy of recertifying all firms every 3 years. We found that SBA failed to recertify 4,655 of the 11,370 firms (more than 40 percent) that had been in the program for more than 3 years. Of the 4,655 firms that should have been recertified, 689 had been in the program for more than 6 years. According to HUBZone program officials, the agency lacked sufficient staff to complete the recertifications. As a result of the backlog, the periods during which some firms went unmonitored and reviewed for eligibility were longer than SBA policy allowed, increasing the risk that ineligible firms were participating in the program. We recommended that SBA establish a specific time frame for eliminating the backlog of recertifications and take the necessary steps to ensure that recertifications were completed in a more timely fashion in the future. In response to our recommendation, SBA temporarily obtained additional staff for the HUBZone program and eliminated the backlog by September 30, 2008. However, SBA has not implemented processes or procedures to ensure that future recertifications will be completed in a more timely fashion. SBA officials stated that its ongoing business process re- engineering includes an assessment of the recertification process. However, as of March 2009, SBA has made limited progress in this effort. As a result, there is still an increased risk that ineligible firms may continue to participate in the program. Our July 2008 report also noted that SBA did not have a policy that included specific time frames for processing decertifications—the determinations subsequent to recertification reviews or examinations that firms are no longer eligible to participate in the HUBZone program. We found that although SBA did not have written guidance for the decertification time frame, the HUBZone program office had negotiated an informal (unwritten) goal of 60 days with the SBA Inspector General in 2006. From fiscal years 2004 through 2007, SBA failed to resolve proposed decertifications within its goal of 60 days for more than 3,200 firms. While SBA’s timeliness had improved, in 2007 more than 400 (or about 33 percent) of decertifications were not resolved in a timely manner. As a consequence of generally not meeting its 60-day goal, lags in the processing of decertifications increased the risk of ineligible firms participating in the program. In our report, we recommended that SBA formalize and adhere to a specific time frame for processing firms proposed for decertification. In response, SBA issued a procedural notice in December 2008 that formalized the 60-day time frame for processing decertifications. Because SBA recently formalized this time frame, we were unable to verify whether SBA staff are adhering to it. In June 2008, we reported that SBA had taken limited steps to assess the effectiveness of the HUBZone program. We found that SBA’s three performance measures for the HUBZone program were not directly linked to the program’s mission of stimulating economic development and creating jobs in economically distressed communities. The Office of Management and Budget also noted in its 2005 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) that SBA needed to develop baseline measures for some of its HUBZone performance measures and encouraged SBA to focus on more outcome-oriented measures that better evaluate the results of the program. In addition, the PART assessment documented plans that SBA had to conduct an analysis of the economic impact of the HUBZone program on a community-by-community basis using data from the 2000 and 2010 decennial census. However, SBA officials indicated that the agency lacked the resources necessary to develop baseline measures or to assess the results of the program. In our report, we recommended that SBA further develop measures and implement plans to assess the effectiveness of the HUBZone program. In addition, in May 2008, after the completion of the audit work for our June 2008 report, SBA’s Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) issued a report assessing the economic impacts of the HUBZone program. In our view, the Advocacy’s report could provide, in part, a foundation for further assessments. In August 2008, in response to our recommendation, SBA published a Notice of Methodology in the Federal Register for measuring the economic impact of the HUBZone program. Rather than conducting a comprehensive effort that considered relevant literature, input from experts in economics and performance measurement, and the methodological contributions of the Advocacy’s evaluation, SBA officials planned to rely on public comments to refine the planned methodology. Two comment letters were submitted. Based on our review, we do not believe this effort was a sound process for developing measures to assess the effectiveness of the program. During subsequent discussions we held with agency staff about this issue, they stated that they have initiated a new effort to address this issue. However, because the agency has not evaluated the HUBZone program’s benefits, SBA continues to lack key information that could help it better manage the program and inform the Congress of its results. Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. For further information on this testimony, please contact William B. Shear at (202) 512-8678 or [email protected]. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included Paige Smith (Assistant Director), Triana Bash, Tania Calhoun, Julia Kennon, and Terence Lam. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.

This testimony discusses the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program. Created in 1997, the HUBZone program provides federal contracting assistance to small businesses located in economically distressed communities, or HUBZone areas, with the intent of stimulating economic development in those areas. In fiscal year 2007, federal agencies awarded contracts valued at about $8 billion to HUBZone firms. Firms that participate in the program must be located in a HUBZone and employ residents of HUBZones to facilitate the goal of bringing capital and employment opportunities to distressed areas. My statement today is based on work we performed to update the status of recommendations we made in our June 2008 report on the HUBZone program and reiterated in a July 2008 testimony. These recommendations called for SBA to improve its controls over the HUBZone program and assess the program's effectiveness. Specifically, this testimony discusses SBA's progress in (1) ensuring that the HUBZone map is accurate; (2) developing and implementing guidance to ensure that participating firms are eligible; (3) eliminating the backlog of recertifications; (4) formalizing and adhering to time frames for decertifying ineligible firms; and (5) developing measures and implementing plans to assess the effectiveness of the program. At the time of the July 2008 testimony and in subsequent correspondence we received from SBA, we observed that the agency did not recognize the commitment required to address the HUBZone program's deficiencies and implement our recommendations. SBA officials told us that they recognize the commitment required to implement our recommendations. Consistent with this recognition, SBA is now working with a contractor to re-engineer its HUBZone program. In summary, SBA has initiated some steps to address the HUBZone program's deficiencies and implement our recommendations.

In an explosive report on CBS’s “60 Minutes” on Sunday, the British supervisor of local security guards protecting the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on the night of Sept. 11, 2012, provided a harrowing account of the extremist attack that killed four Americans. The man whom CBS called Morgan Jones, a pseudonym, described racing to the Benghazi compound while the attack was underway, scaling a 12-foot wall and downing an extremist with the butt end of a rifle as he tried in vain to rescue the besieged Americans. The “60 Minutes” broadcast, in which Jones also recounted his clandestine visit that night to a Benghazi hospital to view the body of slain U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, helped propel a new round of partisan conflict this week over the attack. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) and other Republican lawmakers referred to it repeatedly during a Wednesday news conference. Graham said he would block confirmation of all of President Obama’s nominees, including Jeh Johnson as homeland security secretary and Janet L. Yellen as head of the Federal Reserve, until the administration allowed government witnesses to the attack to appear before Congress. But in a written account that Jones, whose real name was confirmed as Dylan Davies by several officials who worked with him in Benghazi, provided to his employer three days after the attack, he told a different story of his experiences that night. In Davies’s 21 / 2- page incident report to Blue Mountain, the Britain-based contractor hired by the State Department to handle perimeter security at the compound, he wrote that he spent most of that night at his Benghazi beach-side villa. Although he attempted to get to the compound, he wrote in the report, “we could not get anywhere near . . . as roadblocks had been set up.” He learned of Stevens’s death, Davies wrote, when a Libyan colleague who had been at the hospital came to the villa to show him a cellphone picture of the ambassador’s blackened corpse. Davies wrote that he visited the still-smoking compound the next day to view and photograph the destruction. The State Department and GOP congressional aides confirmed that Davies’s Sept. 14, 2012, report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post, was included among tens of thousands of documents turned over to lawmakers by the State Department this year. Davies’s book on the attack, titled “The Embassy House,” by “Sergeant Morgan Jones,” was published this week and largely comports with the “60 minutes” account. It says that he served 14 years in the British military before becoming a private security contractor. A person answering the telephone Thursday at Blue Mountain, based in Wales, said no one was available to discuss Benghazi or Davies, who no longer worked there. Damien Lewis, co-author of the book, said in a telephone interview that Davies was “not well” and is hospitalized. Lewis said he was unaware that the Blue Mountain incident report existed but suggested that Davies might have dissembled in it because his superiors, whom he contacted by telephone once he was informed that the attack was underway, told him to stay away from the compound. “All I can presume, and again I’m speculating, is that his boss told him to stay in the villa and not go anywhere. So he would have penned a report and said he had done what was ordered,” Lewis said. Kevin Tedesco, a spokesman for “60 Minutes,” said, “We stand firmly by the story we broadcast last Sunday.” Administration officials seized on the discrepancies to again criticize GOP zeal in pursuing the Benghazi incident. “The people who were injured and the families of those who died are owed an apology” by Davies and “60 Minutes,” said a senior administration official who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. “There were real heroes that night, including the quick response team that actually got into the U.S. compound and saved lives. Davies was, according to his own after-action report, not one of them.” Asked Thursday about Graham’s threat to hold up Obama’s nominations, White House press secretary Jay Carney said, “The fact is, we have been enormously cooperative and gone to extraordinary efforts to work with seven different congressional committees investigating what happened before, during and after the Benghazi attacks, including testimony at 13 different congressional hearings and participation in 40 staff briefings and the provision of over 25,000 pages of documents.” Republican aides said discrepancies in Davies’s accounts do not undermine wider points made by him and others in the broadcast and hammered on by GOP lawmakers for the past year — that al- Qaeda-linked forces were known to be rampant in Benghazi and the administration ignored warnings that the compound was not secure; that the White House and the State Department lied in their initial accounts of the incident; and that the administration has actively impeded congressional investigation of the security lapse. “Outside his narrative of his own individual actions that night, [Davies’s] information about key Benghazi events appeared consistent with a well-established consensus of an inadequate security posture,” said Frederick Hill, a spokesman for House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). Hill said the committee had not spoken to Davies and had not requested an interview with him, though administration officials confirmed that the FBI has interviewed him. The several dozen employees of the State Department and the CIA who were present that night at the diplomatic compound, or at the nearby CIA annex that was also attacked, have been told that they are free to speak to members of Congress. But neither agency has actively encouraged them to do so. The State and Justice departments have instructed lawmakers that testimony by security agents could compromise their value as witnesses in any future prosecution of the attack perpetrators. “That’s a bunch of garbage,” Graham told CNN on Thursday. “How can you close the chapter on Benghazi when you’ve never talked to the witnesses?” ||||| Controversy over Jones’s interview and book reached a high pitch on Oct. 31 when The Washington Post published details of an incident report allegedly written by Jones that contradicts the account in his book and reveals his real name, Dylan Davies. The four-page incident report, obtained by The Daily Beast, has not been previously published. A State Department official confirmed it matches the version sent to the U.S. government by Davies’s then-employer Blue Mountain Group, the private security company based in Britain, on Sept. 14, 2012, and subsequently provided to Congressional committees investigating the Benghazi attacks. In an interview Saturday with The Daily Beast, Davies said he did not write the incident report, nor had he ever seen it. “I am just a little man against some big people here,” Davies said. “They can do things, make up things, anything they want, I wouldn’t stand a chance.” Davies said he did not know who leaked the report to the Post but said he suspected it was the State Department, an allegation that could not be independently corroborated. “It would not be difficult to do,” Davies said. “I knew I was going to come in for a lot of flack and you know mud slinging, so yeah I’d say it was them, but I can’t be sure.” The State Department has declined to comment on Jones’s book or his 60 Minutes interview. The Blue Mountain Group incident report is written in the first person in the voice of Davies. The version of the document obtained by The Daily Beast is not signed by anyone. It contains two stamps at the top: one of the Blue Mountain Group and one that reads “Embassy of the United States of America.” The incident report differs from the version of events told in Davies’s book The Embassy House and by Davies in his 60 Minutes interview in several significant ways. It also differs from the accounts that Davies gave to the FBI and various other U.S. agencies in the wake of the attack, Davies said. Both Davies’s book and his 60 Minutes interview have Davies and his driver attempting to drive to the U.S. mission in Benghazi from Davies’s villa about 30 minutes after the initial attack on the compound began but failing to reach the compound due to roadblocks set up by a local jihadist militia known as Ansar al-Sharia. But the incident report states that Davies then returned to his villa, rather than traveling to the hospital as he claims in the book. In the report, Davies learned of the ambassador’s death from a Blue Mountain Group guard who had gone to the hospital and taken a photo of the ambassador’s body. In the book, however, Davies recounts in detail his trip to the hospital where he saw the body himself. In the report, Davies remained at his villa until the next morning, when he visited the ruins that remained of the compound. In the book, Davies tells a harrowing tale of his late-night visit to the compound, where he claims he scaled a 12-foot-wall, killed an extremist with the butt of his rifle, saw that the compound had been totally destroyed, and then escaped and returned to his villa. Each account has Davies visiting the compound the morning of Sept. 12, during which he took 25 photos of the burnt-out buildings. (Click here to see nine of the photos.) In his interview with The Daily Beast, Davies said the version of the events contained in the incident report matched what he told his supervisor, called “Robert” in his book, who is a top Blue Mountain Group executive. Davies said he lied to Robert about his actions that night because he did not want his supervisor to know he had disobeyed his orders to stay at his villa. The Daily Beast has redacted the true name of Robert out of his concern for his privacy. “He told me under no circumstances was I to go up there. I respected him so much I did not want him to know that I had not listened to him,” said Davies, referring to Robert. “I have not seen him since.” Davies also wrote in his book that Robert had instructed him not to go to the compound under any circumstances. Davies called Robert after going to the hospital, he said, but before his first visit to the compound on the night of Sept. 11. Davies says he told Robert the ambassador was dead but did not tell him what he was up to. “He was my boss, but more important, he was a father figure and a man of unrivaled experience,” Davies wrote about Robert in the book. “Robert presumed I was still in the villa. I’d chosen not to tell him that I was in a car with two of my guards driving away from the hospital.” In his interview with The Daily Beast, Davies said in addition to writing the book, he was interviewed by a team of U.S. officials from various agencies, including the FBI and the State Department, via a conference call when he arrived in Doha, Qatar, shortly after the attacks. Davies said he also discussed the events in Benghazi with FBI and State Department officials who interviewed him in person Sept. 21 at his home in Wales. These accounts, Davies said, match the ones in his memoir and interview with 60 Minutes. Davies was angry that his real name was published by The Washington Post and was not redacted in the Blue Mountain Group incident report leaked to the media, even though the report redacted other names. “It means I won’t work in the industry again and I can be tracked down pretty quickly with that name,” he said. Damien Lewis, who co-authored The Embassy House with Davies, said in a statement to The Daily Beast Saturday that the leak that included the real identity of Morgan Jones “is deeply disturbing.” Lewis continued, “To deliberately leak his real name means those who may wish to do him harm now have access to his real identity. This is unconscionable." Davies said he believed there was a coordinated campaign to smear him. This week, Media Matters, a progressive media watchdog, sent a public letter to CBS News asking it to retract the 60 Minutes Benghazi piece on the basis of the Washington Post article. On the Fox News Channel, reporter Adam Housley claimed on air this week that Davies asked for money in exchange for an interview. Davies denied this charge. 60 Minutes has stood by its reporting. “These questions have been looked into ad nauseam for months and months and months by a range of independent officials and boards,” State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Oct. 28. “I’m not going to speak to every interview that’s done.” A State Department official speaking on background also downplayed the 60 Minutes Benghazi report. “We don’t have any validation of his story, he wasn’t identified as the person he was,” the official said, referring to Davies. “There honestly wasn’t a great deal new in there.” All of this comes for Davies at a challenging time for him personally. Last week he underwent medical procedures for what his doctors believe is testicular cancer. “If I have to get another bollock chopped off, then so be it,” Davies said. But despite his recent medical problems, Davies said he has a message to the person he believes deliberately outed him to the press. “If you want to let me know who you are because you’ve told everybody who I am, I would like to meet you,” he said. Executives at Blue Mountain Group, including Robert, did not respond to emails requesting comment. ||||| "We're here to kill Americans": Witness on Benghazi attack (CBS News) We're hearing for the first time from a security officer who witnessed the terrorist attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year. U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the attack on the mission and a nearby annex. In an interview for "60 Minutes," correspondent Lara Logan spoke with a British citizen, who had been hired to train the Libyan guards at the U.S. mission. He calls himself Morgan Jones, a pseudonym to protect his safety. Morgan Jones, a British citizen, had been hired to train the Libyan guards at the U.S. mission in Benghazi. / CBS News Jones says he was annoyed that the State Department wouldn't allow his guards to carry guns. As the attack began on Sept. 11, one of the guards called Jones, who was living nearby. Benghazi: A timeline of events "I could hear gunshots, and I -- and he said, 'There's -- there's men coming into the mission,'" Jones said. "His voice, he was -- he was scared. You could tell he was really scared, and he was running. You could tell he was running." His first thought was for his American friends, the State Department agents, pinned down inside the compound, and he couldn't believe it when one of them answered his phone. "I said, 'What's going on?' He said, 'We're getting attacked.' And I said, 'How many?' And he said, 'They're all over the compound,'" Jones said. "And -- I was shocked. I didn't know what to say. And I said, 'Well, just keep fighting. I'm on my way.'" Morgan's guards, unarmed and terrified, were surrounded by heavily armed gunmen, but they still sounded the alarm. "They said, 'We're here to kill Americans, not Libyans,' so they'd give them a good beating, pistol whip them, beat them with their rifles and let them go," Jones said. An independent investigation in Benghazi found the mission security was grossly inadequate and that requests for additional security were not approved at State Department headquarters. You can see Lara Logan's full report, which explains the attack through the eyes of those who understood it best, this Sunday on "60 Minutes." ||||| 60 Minutes reviewing account of Morgan Jones on Benghazi 60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts the account told to us by Morgan Jones of his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound. We are currently looking into this serious matter to determine if he misled us, and if so, we will make a correction. UPDATE: 60 Minutes apologizes for Benghazi report 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan tells CBS This Morning that "we were wrong" on our Benghazi report and "we apologize to our viewers." ||||| Dylan Davies, a security officer hired to help protect the United States Special Mission in Benghazi, Libya, gave the F.B.I. an account of the night that terrorists attacked the mission on Sept. 11, 2012 that contradicts a version of events he provided in a recently published book and in an interview with the CBS News program “ 60 Minutes .” Mr. Davies told the F.B.I. that he was not on the scene until the morning after the attack. The information he provided in an F.B.I. interview was described Thursday by two senior government officials as completely consistent with an incident report by the Blue Mountain security business, which had been hired to protect United States interests in Benghazi. The officials who spoke said they had been briefed on the government investigation. Mr. Davies, who worked for Blue Mountain, has disavowed the incident report, saying in an interview last week with the online magazine The Daily Beast that he did not write it and had never even seen it, and was not responsible for the account of events it contained. The contradictions between the versions offered in the incident report and what was presented on television and in the book, “The Embassy House” — Mr. Davies appeared on the program and wrote the book under the pseudonym Morgan Jones — have led to questions about how “60 Minutes” came to present Mr. Davies as a credible source for its extensive report on the Benghazi incident. The incident report described Mr. Davies as remaining at the villa he occupied in Libya and not getting to the scene on the night of the attack. In the version he wrote in his book and gave to “60 Minutes,” Mr. Davies said he left the villa that night to visit a hospital where he said he saw the body of the deceased ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, and twice rushed to the scene of the attack. At the compound, he said, he had a confrontation with an attacker, whom he dispatched with a blow to the face with a rifle butt. Jennifer Robinson, a spokeswoman for the book’s publisher, Threshold Editions, which is part of the Simon and Schuster unit of CBS, said, “Although we have not seen the F.B.I. report, in light of these revelations we will review the book and take appropriate action with regard to its publication status.” Jeff Fager, the chairman of CBS News and executive producer of “60 Minutes,” said Thursday, “We’re surprised to hear about this, and if it shows we’ve been misled, we will make a correction.” CBS News had extensively defended Mr. Davies this week, suggesting — as Mr. Davies did in the Daily Beast interview — that he was the object of a campaign by State Department officials to quiet continued questioning about the events in Benghazi. CBS also publicly vouched for the authenticity of Mr. Davies’s account on “60 Minutes.” Mr. Fager issued a statement earlier this week saying the program was “proud of the reporting that went into the story” and expressing confidence that the sources on the program “told accurate versions of what happened that night.” Lara Logan, the correspondent on the report, had also expressed confidence that the incident report did not contradict Mr. Davies’s account on “60 Minutes” because he had never signed it and disputed its details. “He never had two stories. He only had one story,” Ms. Logan said in an interview this week. But CBS had all along acknowledged that Mr. Davies had also been interviewed by the F.B.I. The network had suggested that the agency’s interview would corroborate Mr. Davies’s account on “60 Minutes.” Instead, the disclosure that the F.B.I. interview matched the incident report leaves CBS facing more questions about the primary source for its investigation. ||||| TheBlaze reported on the chilling objective stated by Al Qaeda terrorists in the 2012 Benghazi attack — “We’re here to kill Americans” — as a preview of a “60 Minutes” segment, “Benghazi.” The report aired Sunday and examines the horrific attack on the U.S. mission in Libya that took the lives of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans on Sept. 11, 2012, noting that there were many unheeded warnings about the attack as well as misinformation regarding what sparked it — i.e., it wasn’t caused by an anti-Muslim YouTube video, rather it was an Al Qaeda operation from the beginning. “60 Minutes” took to Twitter to outline what it learned a supplement to the television report: [blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/394603707167686656″] [blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/394604224753184768″] [blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/394604389018501120″] [blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/394604922814992384″] [blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/394605510110240768″] [blackbirdpie url=”https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/394605947982974976″] Here’s the entire “60 Minutes” segment, “Benghazi,” via YouTube: (H/T: Twitchy) — [related]

CBS' 60 Minutes today backpedaled away from an attention-grabbing report on the Benghazi consulate attack that it aired two weeks ago, saying it had "learned of new information that undercuts the account" of its key source, a security officer who was protecting the US mission when it was attacked. Dylan Davies, using the pseudonym Morgan Jones, criticized the compound's defenses, amidst an action-packed account in which he raced to the consulate, climbed a 12-foot-wall, and knocked an extremist out with the butt of his gun. He's put out a book with the same story, published by Simon and Schuster—which is owned by CBS. But when the FBI interviewed him, Davies said he'd sat out the attack, instead remaining at the villa where he lived, the New York Times revealed last night. That interview is "completely consistent" with the incident report Davies filed with Blue Mountain, the security contractor he worked for. That incident report was leaked to the Washington Post last week, but Davies called it a lie put out by the "big people" he was upsetting, and CBS stood by him. Now, though, the network appears to have taken down the video, and says it may yank the book as well.

Downtown Cleveland looms beyond the Tremont neighborhood, where old factories and warehouses are quickly being replaced with new housing and businesses. Downtown Cleveland looms beyond the Tremont neighborhood, where old factories and warehouses are quickly being replaced with new housing and businesses. Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post What Cleveland looks like as it prepares for the Republican National Convention What Cleveland looks like as it prepares for the Republican National Convention The Never Trump agitators have been defeated, but they say they’re not going away. Republicans who failed to change party rules here this week and stop Donald Trump from winning the party’s presidential nomination are threatening to cause chaos on the floor of the national convention next week. Bruised by the way party leaders handled debate on a series of proposed rule changes, leaders of anti-Trump groups vowed Friday to find ways to draw at least some political blood when the party meeting begins Monday. The options are limited, and attempts to cause trouble at political conventions are usually quickly thwarted. But anti-Trump activists who spent weeks trying to play within the party structure now say they will do what Trump hates the most — find a way to embarrass him. “If they thought they were going to have the nice, unified kumbaya show, they just completely guaranteed they’re not going to have it,” said Kendal Unruh, a GOP delegate from Colorado who led an anti-Trump group. During a marathon meeting Thursday, Unruh and a small band of like-minded delegates repeatedly failed in attempts to strip Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus of some of his authority and enact rules that would reopen the nomination fight and put Trump at risk. The RNC and the Trump campaign banded together, agreeing to help preserve policies enacted by Priebus during his six years as chairman and stop attempts to unbind delegates to the results of state caucuses and primaries. (Peter Stevenson,Dani Johnson/The Washington Post) “#NeverTrump is never more,” Trump wrote in a boastful tweet Friday. “They were crushed last night in Cleveland.” [Q&A: Paul Manafort on how Trump beat back the Never Trump movement] Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, spent two months overseeing an elaborate, process-laden pressure campaign to stop the rebellion and insisted that he would successfully quash opponents. But the anti-Trump movement continued to hold support from inside and outside the party, with the possibility of the first contested Republican convention since 1976 drawing further media coverage. The campaign thwarted the insurrection by banding together with “people who were for Trump, people who care about the party and people who were persuaded by the moral argument as well,” Manafort said in an interview after the revolt was defeated. “We weren’t heavy-handed,” he said. “We talked to people. We gauged their opinions, found out what they were concerned about and patched together a group that’s been frankly in place for a long time.” But Trump opponents accuse Priebus and the campaign of ignoring the concerns of grass-roots activists and quickly cutting off debate during the committee meeting Thursday. Opponents also seemed caught off guard by a decision by Trump supporters to amend party rules with language clearly stating that convention delegates must vote based on the results of primaries and caucuses. [Attempts to unbind GOP delegates crushed, effectively ending Never Trump] Here are some of the people who are speaking at the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland and some who've opted to skip the event. (Sarah Parnass,Danielle Kunitz/The Washington Post) Dane Waters, who leads a group called Delegates Unbound, said it was “outrageous” that Trump and RNC officials felt the need to make the rule change “given that he was the only horse on the track.” “This shows they were concerned enough about the efforts, that they would take the draconian step to silence the delegates and ensure that Donald Trump was the nominee,” he said. “This is nothing but an assault and an affront on the delegates, who are the true grass roots of the party.” So what can upset delegates do to cause chaos? First, they can try to collect enough signatures to introduce a “minority report” to the full convention. Doing so requires getting at least 28 signatures from members of the convention rules committee. Unruh said Friday that she is unlikely to seek the signatures for her own minority report, since all of her ideas failed. But other delegates who sought to change the party rules by reverting back to “closed” Republican-only primaries and caucuses have not ruled out introducing their plan to the convention. Gay rights activists who sat on the party platform committee have also discussed introducing a resolution that would soften the GOP’s official opposition to same-sex marriage. [Ivanka Trump’s rabbi pulls out of Republican convention] Angry delegates might also attempt to be recognized to officially register opposition to Trump or to force an hours-long roll call of the states, which would upend a speakers schedule aimed at prime-time television coverage. Notably, the rules committee on Thursday rejected a proposal to ensure that a working microphone was readily accessible to the leader of each state delegation. Having an ability to quickly draw attention amid the crush of people inside the convention hall would be critical for any floor fight. The party successfully quashed similar attempts at the 2012 convention, when supporters of then-Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) tried and failed to be recognized. But “we have more numbers than the Ron Paul folks,” said Unruh, who has repeatedly claimed — without clear evidence — that her movement has the support of hundreds of delegates. Waters has made similar unsubstantiated claims. One final option remains: Stay away. Some senior RNC officials worry that delegates might start leaving Cleveland before Trump is scheduled to formally accept the nomination on Thursday night, possibly forcing the campaign to scramble to fill seats inside Quicken Loans Arena. The lack of prominent speakers on most nights of the convention might also compel delegates to reconsider their plans. But Manafort said that months of “conjecture” by Trump’s opponents should give way in the coming days to party unity. “So now do you finally accept the fact that the Never Trump is nevermore?” he asked. “Period. End of sentence.” ||||| Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said Sunday that if the never-Trump movement disrupts proceedings at the GOP convention, it will just help the presumptive Democratic nominee. "If [they] want to delay the proceedings, all they’re doing is delaying the evening and helping Hillary Clinton," Priebus said on ABC's "This Week." "I’m not going to just shut people down," he said of delegates who may try blocking Donald Trump's nomination at the convention. "But I’m also going to make sure that our rules are followed. And I don’t think they’re going to be successful." The party chairman said that never-Trump delegates need to recognize that voters have made their choice. "They don’t like the idea that 14 million people ... picked someone that they didn’t want," Priebus said. He said that opposing Trump now amounts to support for Clinton. "It’s a binary choice," Priebus said. "It’s Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton." The RNC head told ABC's George Stephanopoulos that back in 2014 when Cleveland was picked to host the party convention, he hadn't expected Trump would be the nominee. But, he said, Trump “gives us a great opportunity to win.” A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Trump has all but closed the gap with Democratic rival Clinton, from her 12-point advantage in mid-June to a 4-point gap now. Yet, just one day before the GOP convention kicks off, 60 percent of Americans say the presumptive Republican nominee is unqualified to be president. Priebus dismissed that unfavorable poll number, saying, “Reagan had the same problem in 1979 going into 1980, and I think what it does show in reality is that [Trump] has a lot of space to grow." He said if Trump can bring down that number of people who consider him unqualified, he will "easily" be elected president. "He’s likable," the party chairman said. "He’s interesting to people, he’s intriguing." Priebus also noted that Trump's choice of running mate, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, was a "mature pick" who will help the Republican ticket. Even with Pence's help though Priebus said the convention will be a key moment in Trump's campaign. "Thursday night’s a critical night for him, delivering a great speech, the balloon drop, the people in this country saying, 'I can see Donald Trump being in the White House. I think he’s presidential,'" he said. ||||| CLEVELAND — Anti-Trump forces, preparing their final, desperate maneuver to deny Donald Trump the Republican presidential nomination, are struggling to settle on a strategy — and they’re down to their final day. In hushed meetings in hotels dotting downtown Cleveland on Saturday, deflated leaders of the effort discussed a slew of parliamentary tactics that may disrupt the GOP national convention — which begins here on Monday — but are unlikely to derail Trump himself. Story Continued Below For now, the favored strategy appears to be an attempt to block the convention’s 2,472 delegates from adopting a new set of party rules on Monday, rejecting the blueprint passed Thursday by the Convention Rules Committee. Anti-Trump operatives are cobbling together signatures from delegates in order to force a recorded vote on the rules package. They need the support of majorities in seven delegations to guarantee a vote. And if they succeed, their next challenge would be to furiously lobby the entire convention to reject the rules and add new language freeing them to rebel against Trump. “I’m not going to let the Rules Committee think that they’re relevant,” said Kendal Unruh, a Colorado delegate and leader of the “Free the Delegates” movement. “I’m not going to empower them anymore. The power has been and will continue to be in the hands of the delegates.” The effort to kill the rules got a boost Friday night when Ken Cuccinelli, the leader of a conservative faction of delegates, suggested he’d consider aiding the attempt. Cuccinelli is miffed at failed negotiations with the Republican National Committee on conservative-favored changes to the rules. Now he appears to have found common cause with the stop-Trump delegates, even if he hasn’t explicitly endorsed their goal. Cuccinelli also met Friday with a cadre of delegates who intend to back his effort to force rule changes. They included Virginia’s Morton Blackwell and Anne Gentry, Louisiana’s Gwen Bowen, Wyoming’s Harriet Hageman, Minnesota’s Cindy Pugh, Oklahoma’s Megan Winburn and Oregon’s Solomon Yue, according to two sources familiar with the meeting. The chances of success are slim. Trump’s allies at the convention — the Republican National Committee leadership and his campaign whip team — proved during Thursday’s Rules Committee meeting that advocates for stopping Trump are fewer than anticipated. And Trump's allies will be out in force on the convention floor to keep any wavering delegates on their side. They also expect to have a friend in the convention chairman, House Speaker Paul Ryan, who will make all rulings on proceedings and decide whether to recognize anti-Trump delegates. Trump’s opponents say they’re nervous that Ryan and RNC leaders may also resort to more heavy-handed tactics, from cutting microphones on the floor to physically intervening to prevent delegates from filing signatures. But officials with the RNC and Trump campaign both suggest they don’t expect more than a nominal effort by anti-Trump delegates that will be dispatched with easily. But killing the rules package isn’t the only tactic for anti-Trump activists. Unruh is also working to force a conventionwide debate on her proposal to “unbind” delegates from their obligation to support Trump through a so-called minority report. Unruh attempted to pass this proposal last week, during debate in the Convention Rules Committee, but she found little support — only 12 members of the 112-member committee stood with her on the issue. Dane Waters, a strategist with the anti-Trump group Delegates Unbound, told POLITICO that the Rules Committee defeat — ensured by the Trump campaign's aggressive organization and partnership with the RNC — has actually boosted his group's effort. Delegates, he said, are furious at being shut down on a slew of conservative proposals, not just the unbinding effort, and they're readier than ever to rebel against Trump. A pole marks the spot for the Ohio delegation in Cleveland. | AP Photo "It's a new ballgame," he said. But if Unruh can somehow persuade 28 members of the panel — more than double her original level of support — to sign a “minority report,” it would bring her proposal to the floor of the convention for debate. Unruh claimed on Friday that she had already persuaded two members of the panel who didn’t join her in Thursday’s vote to sign the minority report. Cuccinelli has also signaled he’d back a minority report strategy on some of his favored rules proposals, including a plan to encourage states to close primaries for Democrats and independents. Though the proposal has little to do with Trump’s nomination, RNC and Trump campaign leaders worry any debate on a rules change could become a forum for Trump’s opponents to wield influence. Anti-Trump leaders convened their own conference call Friday afternoon to hone their final tactics. On Saturday morning, Waters was spotted speaking strategy in the lobby of the Doubletree Hotel. An unidentified associate turned to Waters and said, “The only way we’re going to get a rules fix is to actually stop the rules,” he said. Trump allies are largely convinced any serious threat of rebellion is over. Though their whip team will continue to be out in force on the convention floor, supporters say they don’t expect any true threat to materialize. Still, it’s unclear whether the constellation of anti-Trump groups represented in Cleveland are on the same page. Unruh told POLITICO she’s not really sure what her fellow anti-Trump Coloradan Regina Thomson was working on anymore, noting that she’s fully aligned herself with Waters’ efforts. A separate effort by Steve Lonegan, a New Jersey conservative who recently broke from Unruh’s group, said Friday he intended to reach out to her to make sure their strategies are aligned — not contradictory. Some are considering a strategy to walk out of the convention during the presidential roll-call vote in an attempt to deny Trump enough support. But this could have the perverse effect of strengthening Trump because many alternate delegates who take their place might vote in favor of the New York developer. For the most part, though, there was a prevailing sense of defeat among some of the most outspoken anti-Trump advocates here. They watched Thursday as an overwhelming and organized Trump-RNC whip effort dismantled the anti-Trump effort and left them hobbled heading into the week. “I don’t have the sense that our people were really well-versed on the parliamentary procedure,” said Eric Minor, a Washington State delegate and supporter of unbinding. “It’s going to hurt our chances very much, I would say. We’ll see if there’s enough will to keep pushing this effort forward.” Lonegan suggested that he may turn his focus to supporting a plan that would shut Democrats and independents out of Republican primaries. “People tend to go along with the crowd. It’s hard to get people to buck the system,” Lonegan said. “This closed primary battle is going to be critical. We may lose in the short run but win in the long run.”

The Republican National Convention kicks off on Monday and some members of the Never Trump movement still hope he can somehow be stopped before they have to start calling themselves the Never Trump Again movement. Trump foes suffered a major defeat Thursday when the Rules Committee rejected an attempt to "unbind" Trump delegates and let them vote for somebody else, but anti-Trump leaders are planning another attempt to change the rules Monday, aided by Ken Cuccinelli, leader of a conservative faction, Politico reports. If they can't bring in a rule change that will allow them to rebel against Trump, some delegates are considering walkouts or other ways to embarrass Trump and his allies. "If they thought they were going to have the nice, unified kumbaya show, they just completely guaranteed they’re not going to have it,” Kendal Unruh, a GOP delegate from Colorado who leads the Free the Delegates group, told the Washington Post after party leaders crushed the attempt to change the rules last week. Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus tells ABC that Never Trumpers need to accept the fact that 14 million GOP primary voters "picked someone they didn't want"—and if they disrupt the convention, they will only be helping Hillary Clinton. "It's a binary choice," he says "It’s Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton." (The Trump campaign dumped its new Trump/Pence logo after a day.)

Total of three cases confirmed in city of 1 million people, raising fears of wider outbreak Two more cases of Ebola have been confirmed in the north-western city of Mbandaka in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, health officials have said. The report brings to three the number of confirmed cases in the city of 1 million people, raising the prospect of a wider outbreak than feared. The DRC is one of Africa’s most fragile states, with millions threatened by hunger, disease and low-level conflict. Political instability has intensified since the refusal of Joseph Kabila to step down as president when his second term ended in 2016. International aid is pouring in to reinforce health services, with a campaign of vaccinations due to begin on Sunday. The health ministry declared it had activated an action plan in Mbandaka. After visiting the city, which is 360 miles (580km) from the capital, Kinshasa, the health minister, Oly Ilunga, announced on television that all healthcare would be free. “Financial hurdles should not in any way be a brake to having access to healthcare, especially at a time of epidemic,” he said. Prof Jean-Jacques Muyembe, the director general of the DRC’s National Institute for Biomedical Research, told the Guardian on Friday that “the situation had evolved overnight with the confirmation of two new cases” in the Wangata neighbourhood of Mbandaka. “It is very concerning. It’s a big city. We are all doing everything we can, but nonetheless with Ebola there are always surprises,” said Muyembe. The discovery of the first case in Mbandaka this week was described as a “major gamechanger” by the World Health Organization. An emergency meeting of experts was held on Friday to consider the danger of the disease spreading to other countries. “At the global level, the risk is currently low,” the WHO said. Late on Thursday, the DRC health ministry confirmed 11 previously suspected cases of Ebola and two more deaths, taking the total number of cases, including 25 deaths, to 45. All the deaths so far have occurred in Bikoro, a rural area about 75 miles from Mbandaka. The presence of the disease in more isolated areas has given authorities a better chance of preventing its spread. Muyembe said laboratory results released late on Thursday had confirmed the two new cases. He was unable to give any further details about whether the individuals knew each other. The aid agency Médecins san Frontières, however, said it was aware of only one new laboratory-based confirmation from Mbandaka. Mbandaka is located on the banks of the Congo river, a key trade and transport route into Kinshasa, though experts said water transport between the cities could take weeks, slowing any potential spread of the disease. Air transport is limited and expensive. Ebola has twice made it to DRC’s capital in the past and was rapidly stopped. Ilunga said epidemiologists were working to identify people who had been in contact with suspected cases, and authorities would intensify population tracing on routes out of Mbandaka. This is a big task even for medical services in developed countries, but the DRC is one of the world’s poorest. Four times the size of France, the DRC has been chronically unstable and episodically racked by violence since it gained independence from Belgium in 1960. Hospitals, roads and electricity have problems, especially in remote areas. In Mbandaka, medical staff have been issued with infrared pistol thermometers to check travellers for high temperatures, as well as soap and basins of water, and logbooks for writing down visitors’ names and addresses. In the privately run port of Menge, health ministry workers were systematically checking people’s temperatures with thermometers. But Joseph Dangbele, a port official, said: “We don’t have enough of the thermometers, so people are crowding up and getting annoyed.” On Thursday, a doctor at Mbandaka general hospital, who requested anonymity, said more than 300 people in the city had either direct or indirect contact with Ebola. Despite police being deployed in key areas, residents showed little confidence in authorities’ response. Gaston Bongonga said: “Delegations come here and then go, but on the ground, you don’t see any change. They were all unable to hold back Ebola in Bikoro because they don’t do anything effective.” Residents of Bikoro said there were only two checkpoints on a 60-mile stretch of road. One said: “This isn’t effective because many people travelling by motorbike or on foot evade inspection.” Ebola has been recorded nine times in the DRC since the disease first appeared near the northern Ebola river in the 1970s. It can cause internal and external bleeding. More than 4,000 shots of a newly developed vaccine were sent by the WHO to Kinshasa on Wednesday. Congo enters uncharted territory as it faces gravest Ebola challenge to date Read more The vaccine, developed by Merck, is not licensed but proved effective during limited trials in west Africa, where the biggest recorded outbreak of Ebola killed 11,300 people in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone from 2014 to 2016. ||||| Image copyright AFP/Getty Image caption Twenty-three people are known to have died The Ebola outbreak in DR Congo has spread from the countryside into a city, prompting fears that the disease will be increasingly hard to control. Health Minister Oly Ilunga Kalenga confirmed a case in Mbandaka, a city of a million about 130km (80 miles) from where the first cases were confirmed. The city is a major transportation hub with routes to the capital Kinshasa. At least 44 people are thought to have been infected with ebola and 23 deaths are being investigated. Ebola is a serious infectious illness that causes internal bleeding and often proves fatal. It can spread rapidly through contact with small amounts of bodily fluid and its early flu-like symptoms are not always obvious. The World Health Organization (WHO) has called an emergency meeting of experts to talk about the risk that Ebola might spread beyond DR Congo. It will meet on Friday to decide whether to declare an international public health emergency which would trigger a larger global response, like in the case of the 2014-16 Western African Ebola outbreak and the 2016 Zika virus in Latin America. Why is the spread to a city such a worry? The 2014-16 West Africa outbreak, which killed 11,300 people, was particularly deadly because it spread to the capital cities of Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia. Senior WHO official Peter Salama said the spread to Mbandaka meant there was the potential for an "explosive increase" in cases. "This is a major development in the outbreak," he told the BBC. "We have urban Ebola, which is a very different animal from rural Ebola. The potential for an explosive increase in cases is now there." Mr Salama, the WHO's deputy director-general for emergency preparedness and response, said Mbandaka's location on the Congo river, widely used for transportation, raised the prospect of Ebola spreading to surrounding countries such as Congo-Brazzaville and the Central African Republic as well as downstream to Kinshasa, a city of 10 million people. "This puts a whole different lens on this outbreak and gives us increased urgency to move very quickly into Mbandaka to stop this new first sign of transmission," he said. What is being done to contain the outbreak? So far only three of the 44 cases have been confirmed as Ebola and involve people who are still alive, the WHO says. There are a further 20 probable cases and 21 suspected cases. The cases were recorded in three health zones of Congo's Equateur province. Isolation and rudimentary Ebola case management facilities had been set up in Mbandaka to cope with cases, Mr Salama said. The disease may have been brought there, he said, by two or three people who had attended the funeral of an Ebola victim in Bikoro to the south of Mbandaka before travelling to the city. On Wednesday more than 4,000 doses of an experimental vaccine sent by the WHO arrived in Kinshasa with another batch expected soon. These would be given as a priority to people in Mbandaka who had been in contact with those suspected of carrying the Ebola virus before people in any other affected area, in order to stop Ebola spreading in the urban region and beyond, Mr Salama said. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption How the virus attacks human cells The vaccine from pharmaceutical firm Merck is unlicensed but was effective in limited trials during the West Africa Ebola Outbreak. It needs to be stored at a temperature of between -60 and -80 C. Electricity supplies in Congo are unreliable. Health workers had identified 430 people who may have had contact with the disease and were working to trace more than 4,000 contacts of Ebola patients, who had spread across north-west DR Congo, the WHO said. Many of these people were in areas only reachable by motorbike, Mr Salama said. A poor city with intermittent power By Jacques Matand', BBC Afrique Mbandaka is a poor city on the banks of the River Congo. Those of its residents who can afford to pay for electricity only get it for three to four hours a day, otherwise people use generators or solar panels. The city has two hospitals, which have received money for renovations. But even they do not have a regular electricity supply and have to rely on generators. For water, Mbandaka's residents use wells or the river. Many people also use the river as a toilet, meaning there is a high risk of diseases, not just Ebola, spreading. Passenger boats used to operate along the river to Kinshasa but these are no longer working. However, traders still use wooden canoes to reach the capital to buy and sell their goods - and this is how it is feared Ebola could spread. What about travel restrictions? The WHO said it was not recommending any trade or travel restrictions either within DR Congo, for example between Mbandaka and Kinshasa, or internationally. But Mr Salama said that 13 countries in the region were boosting border screening measures and said DR Congo itself was increasing exit screening measures. "The good news is that the DR Congo population is very used to Ebola outbreaks," he added. "They know to protect themselves by avoiding mass gatherings and mass funerals. They know as well that traditional healers can amplify the outbreak." Image copyright Reuters Image caption An experimental vaccine has arrived in the country Observers described the international response so far as "remarkable and very rapid". "The logistic issues... will also be considerable on the ground to identify who should be vaccinated and to get out in this vast and very difficult area and provide vaccination in an appropriate way," New York-based Ebola expert Dr Laurie Garrett told the BBC. "It's never been done before in the midst of an exploding outbreak so we'll watch it very closely." Why does Ebola keep coming back? There have been three outbreaks in DR Congo since the 2014-16 epidemic. Ebola is thought to be spread over long distances by fruit bats and is often transmitted to humans via contaminated bushmeat. It can also be introduced into the human population through close contact with the blood, organs or other bodily fluids of infected animals. These can include chimpanzees, gorillas, monkeys, antelope and porcupines. The disease is endemic to the area and it is not possible to eradicate all the animals who might be a host for Ebola. As long as humans come in contact with them, there is always a possibility that Ebola could return. ||||| The Ebola outbreak in West Africa was first reported in March 2014, and rapidly became the deadliest occurrence of the disease since its discovery in 1976. In fact, the epidemic killed five times more than all other known Ebola outbreaks combined. More than 21 months on from the first confirmed case recorded on 23 March 2014, 11,315 people have been reported as having died from the disease in six countries; Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, the US and Mali. The total number of reported cases is about 28,637. But on 13 January, 2016, the World Health Organisation declared the last of the countries affected, Liberia, to be Ebola-free. The World Health Organization (WHO) admits the figures are underestimates, given the difficulty collecting the data. There needs to be 42 days without any new cases for a country to be declared Ebola-free. The outbreaks in Nigeria and Senegal were declared officially over by the WHO in October 2014. Sierra Leone and Guinea both had much larger outbreaks and it took a little longer. Sierra Leone was declared Ebola-free on 7 November 2015, Guinea followed in December. Liberia has been the worst-hit, with more than 4,800 dead and 10,672 becoming infected. The WHO said that at the peak of transmission, during August and September 2014, Liberia was reporting between 300 and 400 new cases every week. The epidemic seemed to abate and the outbreak in Liberia was declared over on 9 May 2015 - only to re-emerge seven weeks later when a 17-year-old man died from the disease and more cases were reported. The same happened in September, which is why the latest declaration of Liberia being Ebola-free, while welcome, should be treated with caution, say correspondents. The WHO has warned that West Africa may see flare-ups of the virus. How the virus spread Researchers from the New England Journal of Medicine traced the outbreak to a two-year-old toddler, who died in December 2013 in Meliandou, a small village in south-eastern Guinea. In March, hospital staff alerted Guinea's Ministry of Health and then medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF). They reported a mysterious disease in the south-eastern regions of Gueckedou, Macenta, Nzerekore, and Kissidougou. It caused fever, diarrhoea and vomiting. It also had a high death rate. Of the first 86 cases, 59 people died. The WHO later confirmed the disease as Ebola. Ebola death toll Image copyright AP Ebola outbreak: Key stories "Biggest health challenge since Aids" How not to catch Ebola Why is Ebola so dangerous? Ebola diary Tracing the outbreak Full special report Disease spreads The Gueckedou prefecture in Guinea, where the outbreak started, is a major regional trading centre and, by the end of March, Ebola had crossed the border into Liberia. It was confirmed in Sierra Leone in May. In June, MSF described the Ebola outbreak as out of control. Nigeria had its first case of the disease in July and, in the same month, two leading doctors died from Ebola in Liberia and Sierra Leone. In August, the United Nations health agency declared an "international public health emergency", saying that a co-ordinated response was essential to halt the spread of the virus. Senegal reported its first case of Ebola on 29 August. A young man from Guinea had travelled to Senegal despite having been infected with the virus, officials said. By September, WHO director general Margaret Chan said the number of patients was "moving far faster than the capacity to manage them". Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the US, Thomas Frieden, said in October that the Ebola outbreak in West Africa was unlike anything since the emergence of HIV/Aids. But Senegal managed to halt transmissions by mid October. Authorities in Mali confirmed the death of the country's first Ebola patient, a two-year-old girl, on 25 October. The girl had travelled hundreds of kilometres by bus from Guinea through Mali showing symptoms of the disease, the WHO said. An infected Islamic preacher from Guinea, who was initially diagnosed with a kidney problem, was treated at a clinic in Bamako. The preacher died a few days after entering the country. Two health workers who cared for the preacher also died after contracting the virus. In total, Mali recorded six deaths from Ebola. By January 2015 however, the country was declared ebola-free. Ebola outside West Africa *In all but three cases the patient was infected with Ebola while in West Africa. Infection outside Africa has been restricted to health workers in Madrid and in Dallas. DR Congo also reported a separate outbreak of an unrelated strain of Ebola. The first case of the deadly virus diagnosed on US soil was announced on 1 October. Thomas Eric Duncan, 42, who contracted the virus in Liberia before travelling to the US, died on 8 October. He had not displayed symptoms of the disease until 24 September, five days after his arrival. Other people with whom he came into contact are being monitored for symptoms. Two medical workers in Dallas, Texas, who treated Duncan tested positive for Ebola since his death but have both recovered. The second death on US soil was surgeon Martin Salia, from Sierra Leone. He was flown back to the United States in November and treated for Ebola at a hospital in Nebraska. But Dr Salia, who had US residency and was married to an American, died a short time later. Spanish nurse Teresa Romero was the first person to contract the virus outside West Africa. She was part of a team of about 30 staff at the Carlos II hospital in Madrid looking after two missionaries who returned from Liberia and Sierra Leone after becoming infected. Germany, Norway, France, Italy, Switzerland and the UK have all treated patients who contracted the virus in West Africa. 2014 outbreak in context Ebola was first identified in 1976 and occurs in regions of sub-Saharan Africa. There are normally fewer than 500 cases reported each year, and no cases were reported at all between 1979 and 1994. In August 2014, the WHO confirmed a separate outbreak of Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo. By the beginning of October there had been 70 cases reported and 43 deaths. However, the outbreak in DR Congo was a different strain of the virus and unrelated to the epidemic in West Africa, which now dwarfs all previous outbreaks. Past epidemics ||||| KINSHASA, Congo -- Congo's Ebola outbreak has spread to a crossroads city of more than 1 million people in a troubling turn. It marks the first time the vast, impoverished country has encountered the lethal virus in an urban area. "This is a major, major game-changer in the outbreak," Dr. Peter Salama, the World Health Organization's deputy director-general of emergency preparedness and response, warned Thursday. A single case of Ebola was confirmed in Mbandaka, a densely populated provincial capital on the Congo River, Congo's Health Minister Oly Ilunga said late Wednesday. The city is about 150 kilometers -- 93 miles -- from Bikoro, the rural area where the outbreak was announced last week. "We're certainly not trying to cause any panic in the national or international community," Salama said. But "urban Ebola can result in an exponential increase in cases in a way that rural Ebola struggles to do." A total of 44 cases of Ebola have been reported in Congo in this latest outbreak of the disease, which is spread by bodily fluids. Three cases are confirmed, 20 are probable and 21 are suspected, according to WHO. Of those people, 23 have died. Until now, the outbreak was confined to remote rural areas, where Ebola travels more slowly. In this photo taken Saturday, May 12, 2018, health workers don protective clothing as they prepare to attend to patients in the isolation ward to diagnose and treat suspected Ebola patients, at Bikoro Hospital in Bikoro. Mark Naftalin/UNICEF via AP Mbandaka, a city of almost 1.2 million people, is in a busy travel corridor in Congo's northwest Equateur province and is upstream from the capital, Kinshasa, a city of about 10 million. It is an hour's plane ride from Kinshasa or a four- to seven-day trip by river barge. Salama noted Mbandaka's proximity to neighboring countries, including Central African Republic and Republic of Congo. "The scenario has changed, and it has become most serious and worrying, since the disease is now affecting an urban area," said Henry Gray, emergency coordinator in Mbandaka for Doctors Without Borders. The aid organization said 514 people believed to have been in contact with infected people are being monitored. WHO said it is deploying about 30 more experts to the city. Ebola vaccine Those exposed will for the first time in Congo receive Ebola vaccinations, the health minister said. WHO has sent 4,000 doses of the vaccine to Congo and said it will dispatch thousands more in the coming days as needed. WHO has said it will use the "ring vaccination" method, which involves vaccinating contacts of those feared infected, contacts of those contacts, and health care and other front-line workers. Experimental Ebola vaccines arriving in Democratic Republic of Congo amid outbreak "This is a concerning development, but we now have better tools than ever before to combat Ebola," Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO director-general, said of the new urban case. The vaccine has been shown to be highly effective against Ebola. It was tested in Guinea during the outbreak that killed more than 11,300 people in West Africa from 2014 to 2016. CBS News' Patta said the fact that there is a vaccine marks a significant difference between the outbreak in West Africa that started in 2014 and the outbreak in the Congo today. "It can't cure Ebola, but what it can do is stop the spread of the disease," she said. Patta also reported that a crucial difference between the two outbreaks is the speed at which international agencies have responded. "In 2014, you remember that the World Health Organization and other agencies were criticized for being 'staggeringly slow' to respond," Patta said. More than 11,000 people died before the outbreak was contained. "This time, they've wasted no time," she said. This is the ninth Ebola outbreak in Congo since 1976, when the disease was first identified. The virus is initially transmitted to people from wild animals, including bats and monkeys. There is no specific treatment for Ebola. Symptoms include fever, vomiting, diarrhea, muscle pain and at times internal and external bleeding. The virus can be fatal in up to 90 percent of cases, depending on the strain.

Developments in a city in the Democratic Republic of Congo have taken what one health official deems a "concerning" turn overnight. Per the Guardian, Jean-Jacques Muyembe, the head of the country's National Institute for Biomedical Research, says lab results have confirmed two additional cases of Ebola in Mbandaka; one other confirmed case, called a "major, major game-changer" by the World Health Organization, had been announced earlier this week. Muyembe didn't note whether the three patients know each other. CBS News reports it's the first time the Ebola virus has made its way into a Congolese urban area. The BBC notes such an outbreak in Mbandaka, a city of one million, is even more worrisome than if it took place in a more rural location, mainly due to the "potential for an explosive increase in cases," per a senior WHO official. The Ebola outbreak a few years back in West Africa killed more than 11,000 people, many of them in capital cities. Some residents of Mbandaka are alarmed. "I'm looking for a boat to leave," one tells the Guardian. "If the authorities have allowed the disease to arrive here, we all risk being killed." (An Ebola vaccine that's being fast-tracked.)

The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program officials’ statements, satisfied four legislative conditions, partially satisfied four legislative conditions, and did not satisfy one legislative condition. The nine legislative conditions and the level of satisfaction are summarized below. Legislative condition 1: Define activities, milestones, and costs for implementing the program (partially satisfied). The SBInet expenditure plan included general cost information for proposed activities and some associated milestone information, such as beginning and ending dates. DHS estimates that the total cost for completing the acquisition phase for the southwest border is $7.6 billion for fiscal years 2007 through 2011. However, the plan and related documentation did not include sufficient details about the activities, milestones, or costs for implementing the program. Although the plan stated that about $790 million will be spent in the Tucson sector in Arizona for such elements as fencing, ground sensors, radars, cameras, and fixed and mobile towers, the plan did not specify how the funds will be allocated by element and did not provide specific dates for implementation. In addition, the plan did not include activities, milestones, or costs for the northern border. According to DHS, work on the northern border is not to begin before fiscal year 2009. Legislative condition 2: Demonstrate how activities will further the goals and objectives of the SBI, as defined in the SBI multiyear strategic plan (not satisfied). The SBInet expenditure plan included a section that describes SBI and SBInet goals; however, the expenditure plan and related documentation did not link individual activities with SBI’s goals, as called for by the legislative condition. Further, the December 2006 SBI strategic plan contained three strategic goals, one of which addresses border control. SBI and SBInet senior officials told us all SBInet activities link back to the overall goal of controlling the border and that the linkage between program goals and activities is intuitive. However, the SBInet expenditure plan did not link specific activities to more detailed SBI strategic plan goals, such as the annual performance goals. Legislative condition 3: Identify funding and organization staffing (including full-time equivalents, contractors, and detailees) requirements by activity (satisfied). The SBInet program is managed by the SBInet Program Management Office (PMO). The PMO plans to execute SBInet activities through a series of concurrent task orders and to rely on a mix of government and contractor staff. The PMO plans to nearly triple its current workforce, from approximately 100 to 270 personnel, by September 2007 in order to support and oversee this series of concurrent task orders. As of December 2006, SBInet officials told us that they have assigned lead staff for the task orders that have been awarded. Legislative condition 4: Report on costs incurred, the activities completed, and the progress made by the program in terms of obtaining operational control of the entire border of the United States (partially satisfied). The SBInet expenditure plan and related documentation discussed how approximately $1.5 billion will be allocated to SBInet activities. For example, about $790 million is allocated for the Tucson Border Patrol sector and $260 million for the Yuma sector in Arizona. However, the plan did not include costs incurred to date mainly because SBInet activities are in the early stages of implementation and costs had not yet been captured by DHS’s accounting system (e.g., the SBInet systems integration contract was awarded in September 2006 and the first two task orders were awarded in September and October 2006). Moreover, the expenditure plan did not include a baseline measure of miles under control of the border. While the plan did not discuss progress made to date by the program to obtain control of the border, related program documents, such as the bimonthly SBI reports to Congress, included information on the number of miles under control in the southwest border. According to the November 2006 bimonthly report, as of August 2006, 284 miles of the southwest border are under control. Legislative condition 5: Include a certification by DHS’s Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) that procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between the prime integrator and major subcontractors are established and a certification by DHS’s Chief Information Officer (CIO) that an independent verification and validation agent is currently under contract for the project (satisfied). On November 30, 2006, DHS’s CPO certified that the prime integrator had established procedures to prevent conflicts of interest between it and its major subcontractors and that DHS is developing a process to monitor and oversee implementation of the prime integrator’s procedures. Also, on November 30, 2006, DHS’s Deputy CIO certified that the SBInet program had contracted with a private company as the interim independent verification and validation (IV&V) agent. However, this company is also responsible for performing program activities, including requirements management and test and evaluation activities and thus is not independent of all the program’s products and processes that it could review. The Deputy CIO certified that a permanent IV&V agent is to be selected by February 28, 2007, and that CBP is to provide information sufficient to determine that this independence issue has been resolved. Legislative condition 6: Comply with all applicable acquisition rules, requirements, guidelines, and best systems acquisition management practices of the federal government (partially satisfied). SBInet is using, at least to some extent, several acquisition best practices. The extent to which these practices are in use varies, and outcomes are dependent on successful implementation. However, one acquisition requirement not followed was that the SBInet systems integration contract did not contain a specific number of units that may be ordered or a maximum dollar value. According to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), indefinite quantity contracts must specify the maximum quantity of supplies or services the agency will acquire. This may be stated as a number of units or as a dollar value. SBI and SBInet officials told us that the contract already contains a maximum quantity of “6,000 miles of secure U.S. border” and that this was sufficient to satisfy the FAR requirement. We disagree because the statement in the contract about the 6,000 miles of secure border merely reflects the agency’s overall outcome to be achieved with the supplies or services provided but does not specify the maximum quantity of supplies or services the agency may acquire. We believe that a maximum quantity or dollar value limit should be included in the contract in order to ensure that it is consistent with the FAR requirement. SBInet’s acquisition approach calls for considerable concurrency among related planned tasks and activities. The greater the degree of concurrency among related and dependent program tasks and activities, the greater a program’s exposure to cost, schedule, and performance risks. SBI and SBInet officials told us that they understand the risks inherent in concurrency and are addressing these risks. However, they have yet to provide evidence that shows they have identified the dependencies among their concurrent activities and that they are proactively managing the associated risk. Further, the program office did not fully define and implement key acquisition management processes, such as project planning, requirements management, and risk management. According to the SBInet Program Manager, this is due to the priority being given to meeting an accelerated program implementation schedule. However, the program office has begun implementing a risk management process and, according to the Program Manager, plans to develop a plan for defining and implementing the remaining processes by the spring of 2007. Legislative condition 7: Comply with the capital planning and investment control review requirements established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), including Circular A-11, part 7 (partially satisfied). As required by OMB, the plan and related documentation provided a brief description of SBInet and addressed the program’s management structure and responsibilities for most of the program office’s directorates. In addition, the program office developed a draft privacy impact assessment and established an earned value management (EVM) system to manage the prime integrator’s progress against cost and schedule goals. However, an OMB-required EVM system had not been fully implemented because the baselines against which progress can be measured for the two task orders that had been issued, as of December 4, 2006, were not yet established. Further, the program office had not yet developed a system security plan or determined SBInet’s compliance with the DHS enterprise architecture. Legislative condition 8: Include reviews and approvals by DHS’s Investment Review Board (IRB), the Secretary of Homeland Security, and OMB (satisfied). DHS’s IRB approved the plan on November 22, 2006; the Secretary of Homeland Security approved the expenditure plan on November 22, 2006; and OMB approved the plan on December 4, 2006. Legislative condition 9: Include a review by GAO (satisfied). On December 7, 2006, we briefed the House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations staff and on December 13, 2006, we briefed the Senate Committee on Appropriations staff regarding the results of our review. The legislatively mandated expenditure plan for SBInet is a congressional oversight mechanism aimed at ensuring that planned expenditures are justified, performance against plans is measured, and accountability for results is ensured. Because the SBInet expenditure plan lacked sufficient details on such things as planned activities and milestones, anticipated costs and staffing levels, and expected mission outcomes, Congress and DHS are not in the best position to use the plan as a basis for measuring program success, accounting for the use of current and future appropriations, and holding program managers accountable for achieving effective control of the southwest border. Under the FAR, indefinite quantity contracts such as the SBInet contract must contain the specific number of units that may be ordered or a maximum dollar value. However, the SBInet contract merely contains the maximum number of miles to be secured. While SBInet officials consider this sufficient to satisfy the FAR requirement, a maximum quantity expressed in units other than the overall outcome to be achieved or expressed as a dollar value limit would help ensure that the contract is consistent with this requirement. DHS’s approach to SBInet introduces additional risk because the program’s schedule entails a high level of concurrency. With multiple related and dependent projects being undertaken simultaneously, SBInet is exposed to possible cost and schedule overruns and performance problems. Without assessing this level of concurrency and how it affects project implementation, SBInet runs the risk of not delivering promised capabilities and benefits on time and within budget. To help ensure that Congress has the information necessary to effectively oversee SBInet and hold DHS accountable for program results, and to help DHS manage the SBInet program and ensure that future SBInet expenditure plans meet the legislative requirements, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Secure Border Initiative Program Management Office Executive Director to take the following three actions: ensure that future expenditure plans include explicit and measurable commitments relative to the capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits associated with individual SBInet program activities; modify the SBInet systems integration contract to include a maximum quantity or dollar value; and re-examine the level of concurrency and appropriately adjust the acquisition strategy. In written comments on a draft of this report, DHS generally agreed with our findings and conclusions, but did not agree with our assessment that the SBInet contract does not contain specific numbers of units that may be ordered or a maximum dollar value. In addition, DHS stated that CBP intends to fully satisfy each of the legislative conditions in the near future to help minimize the program’s exposure to cost, schedule, and performance risks. DHS’s written comments are reproduced in appendix II. With respect to our recommendations, DHS concurred with two of our recommendations and disagreed with one. Specifically, DHS concurred with our recommendation for future expenditure plans to include explicit and measurable commitments relative to capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits associated with individual SBInet program activities. According to DHS, future SBInet expenditure plans will include actual and planned progress, report against commitments contained in prior expenditure plans, and include a section that addresses and tracks milestones. DHS also concurred with our recommendation to re-examine the level of concurrency and appropriately adjust the acquisition strategy. In its written comments, DHS stated that CBP is constantly assessing the overall program as it unfolds, and adjusting it to reflect progress, resource constraints, refinements and changes in requirements, and insight gained from ongoing system engineering activities. DHS also stated that CBP recognizes the risk inherent in concurrency and has added this to the program’s risk management database. DHS did not agree with our recommendation to modify the SBInet integration contract to include a maximum quantity or dollar value. According to DHS, the quantity stated in the contract, “6,000 miles of secure U.S. border,” is measurable and is therefore the most appropriate approach to defining the contract ceiling. We do not agree. Under the FAR, an agency may use an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract, such as that used for SBInet, when it is not possible to determine in advance the precise quantities of goods or services that may be required during performance of the contract. Though these types of contracts are indefinite, they are not open-ended. The FAR requires that indefinite quantity contracts contain a limit on the supplies or services that may be ordered, stated in terms of either units or dollars. This limit serves a variety of purposes, including establishing the maximum financial obligation of the parties. In our view, the purported maximum used in the SBInet contract, “the full panoply of supplies and services to provide 6,000 miles of secure U.S. border,” does not allow anyone to calculate with any degree of certainty what the maximum financial obligation of the parties might turn out to be since the contract does not make clear the total amount of supplies or services that would be required to secure even 1 mile of U.S. border. In order to ensure that the SBInet contract is consistent with the FAR, we continue to believe that it should be modified to include a maximum quantity, either units or a dollar value, rather than the total amount of miles to be secured. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority Members of other Senate and House committees that have authorization and oversight responsibilities for homeland security. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Copies of this report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please contact Richard Stana at (202) 512-8816 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Pub. L. No. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1355, 1359-60. The Appropriations Act required an expenditure plan to establish a security barrier along the border of the United States of fencing and vehicle barriers and other forms of tactical infrastructure and technology. In response to this requirement, DHS submitted a plan on December 4, 2006, titled “SBInet Expenditure Plan,” that defines SBInet as “the component of SBI charged with developing and installing the technology and tactical infrastructure solution for border control.” The Appropriations Act also required GAO to review the expenditure plan. 1. detect illegal entries into the United States; 2. identify and classify these entries to determine the level of threat involved; 3. efficiently and effectively respond to these entries; and 4. bring events to a satisfactory law enforcement resolution. The initial focus of SBInet will be on southwest border investments and areas between the ports of entry that CBP has designated as having the highest need for enhanced border security due to serious vulnerabilities. Figure 2 shows the topography, interstate highways, and some major secondary roads along the southwest border. DHS estimates that the total cost for completing the acquisition phase for the southwest border is $7.6 billion from FY2007 through FY2011. $5.1 billion is for the design, development, integration and deployment of fencing, roads, vehicle barriers, sensors, radar units, and command, control, and communications and other equipment. $2.5 billion is for integrated logistics and operations support during the acquisition phase for the southwest border. DHS expects to have control of the southwest border by October 2011. DHS officials have yet to provide draft implementation plans by southwest border sectors and years for FY2007-FY2011. The expenditure plan does not include activities, milestones, or costs for the northern border. According to DHS, work on the northern border is not projected to begin before FY2009. Provide a brief description of the investment and its status in the CPIC review, including major assumptions made about the investment. contribute to achievement of cost, schedule, and performance goals. The expenditure plan and other documentation address the management structures and responsibilities. Specifically, the program office includes six line and four staff directorates reporting to the SBInet Program Manager. The management structure also includes the use of integrated project teams that consist of subject matter experts from a variety of disciplines required to effectively manage an acquisition project. The draft Program Management Plan, dated September 18, 2006, identified responsibilities for five of the six program office line directorates, and for two of the four staff directorates. The plan also identified responsibilities for some, but not all, divisions within each of the directorates. For example, the plan describes the responsibilities of the Mission Engineering Directorate, but it does not describe the responsibilities for the five divisions within the Directorate. We have not yet seen any documentation that describes the qualifications of the program office staff. Provide a summary of the investment’s risk assessment, including how 19 OMB- identified risk elements are being addressed. The program office has defined and begun implementing a risk management process, and developed a risk database that addresses 13 of the 19 OMB-identified risk. The risk elements that are not addressed include privacy and technical obsolescence. Provides a summary of the investment’s status in accomplishing baseline cost and schedule goals through the use of an earned value management (EVM) system or operational analysis, depending on the life-cycle stage. The program office is currently relying on the prime integrator’s EVM system to manage the prime contractor’s progress against cost and schedule goals. The prime integrator’s EVM system has been independently certified as meeting established standards. However, the EVM system has not yet been fully implemented because the baselines against which progress can be measured for the two task orders that have been issued to date has not yet been established. According to program officials, these baselines will be established for the program management task order and the Project 28 task order in mid-December 2006 and mid-January 2007, respectively. and CPIC process. The expenditure plan did not include a discussion of the program office’s activities in regard to the DHS enterprise architecture. Moreover, according to program officials, the program office has not yet determined if SBInet is aligned with the architecture. According to these officials, SBInet is to be reviewed by the Enterprise Architecture Center of Excellence, which is the DHS entity that determines enterprise architecture alignment, by the end of December 2006. Provides a description of an investment’s security and privacy issues. Summarizes the agency’s ability to manage security at the system or application level. Demonstrates compliance with the certification and accreditation process, as well as the mitigation of IT security weaknesses. The expenditure plan did not include a discussion of security and/or privacy. According to a program office security specialist, the program office has not yet developed a system security plan because it is too early in the system development life cycle. A system security plan is to be developed as a part of the system certification and accreditation process. Regarding privacy, the program office developed a draft privacy impact assessment dated October 2006. The assessment addresses several, but not all, of OMB’s criteria. Legislative Condition #8: Includes Approvals by IRB, DHS Secretary and OMB (Satisfied) The expenditure plan, including related documentation and program officials’ statements, satisfied the condition that the plan be reviewed and approved by DHS’s Investment Review Board, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and OMB. DHS’s Investment Review Board approved the plan on November 22, 2006. The Secretary of Homeland Security approved the expenditure plan on November 22, 2006. OMB approved the plan on December 4, 2006. The SBInet PMO provided draft versions of the expenditure plan and supporting documentation. We conducted our review from October 11, 2006, to December 5, 2006. program officials’ statements, has satisfied four, partially satisfied four and not satisfied one of the nine conditions legislated by the Congress. Satisfying the legislative conditions is important because the expenditure plan is intended to provide Congress with the information needed to effectively oversee the program and hold DHS accountable for program results. Satisfying the legislative conditions is also important to minimize the program’s exposure to cost, schedule, and performance risks. DHS’s approach to SBInet introduces additional risk because the program’s structure entails a high level of concurrency and lacks a maximum quantity or dollar value for the integration contract. The current expenditure plan offers a high-level and partial outline of a large and complex program that forms an integral component of a broader multi-year initiative. However, Congress and DHS need additional details of planned milestones, anticipated interim and final costs, and staffing to be reasonably assured that the current risk to the project’s cost, schedule, and ultimate effectiveness is minimized. ensure that future expenditure plans include explicit and measurable commitments relative to the capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits associated with individual SBInet program activities; re-examine the level of concurrency and appropriately adjust the acquisition strategy; and modify the SBInet systems integration contract to include a maximum quantity or dollar value. DHS, SBI and SBInet officials also provided clarifying information that we incorporated as appropriate in this briefing. expenditure plan and supporting documentation, comparing them to relevant federal requirements and guidance, and applicable best practices. We reviewed draft versions of the expenditure plan, including versions 1.0 (November 15, 2006); 2.0 (November 27, 2006); and 2.1 (November 29, 2006). We also reviewed the final version of the plan submitted to Congress on December 4, 2006. We interviewed DHS, CBP, SBI, and SBInet program officials and contractors. We did not review the justification for cost estimates included in the expenditure plan. In addition, we did not independently verify the source or validity of the cost information. guidance (OMB-A-11) to determine whether the information complies with the capital planning and investment controls. We conducted our work at CBP headquarters in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area from October 2006 to December 2006, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. In addition to the person named above, Robert E. White, Assistant Director; Deborah Davis, Assistant Director; Richard Hung, Assistant Director; E. Jeanette Espínola; Frances Cook; Katherine Davis; Gary Delaney; Joseph K. Keener; Sandra Kerr; Raul Quintero; and Sushmita Srikanth made key contributions to this report.

In November 2005, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established the Secure Border Initiative (SBI) program to secure U.S. borders and reduce illegal immigration. One element of SBI is SBInet, the program responsible for developing a comprehensive border protection system. By legislative mandate, DHS developed a fiscal year 2007 expenditure plan for SBInet to address nine legislative conditions, including a review by GAO. DHS submitted the plan to the Appropriations Committees on December 4, 2006. To address the mandate, GAO assessed the plan against federal guidelines and industry standards and interviewed appropriate DHS officials. The SBInet expenditure plan, including related documentation and program officials' statements, satisfied four legislative conditions, partially satisfied four legislative conditions, and did not satisfy one legislative condition. Satisfying the legislative conditions is important because the expenditure plan is intended to provide Congress with the information needed to effectively oversee the program and hold DHS accountable for program results. Satisfying the legislative conditions is also important to minimize the program's exposure to cost, schedule, and performance risks. SBInet's December 2006 expenditure plan offered a high-level and partial outline of a large and complex program that forms an integral component of a broader multiyear initiative. However, the plan and related documentation did not include explicit and measurable commitments relative to capabilities, schedule, costs, and benefits associated with individual SBInet program activities. In addition, the SBInet systems integration contract did not contain a specific number of units that may be ordered or a maximum dollar value as required by Federal Acquisition Regulation. Further, DHS's approach to SBInet introduces additional risk because the program's schedule entails a high level of concurrency among related planned tasks and activities.

The New York Fight Against Golden Dawn and Fascism: Where Vertical and Horizontal Come Together Golden Dawn, the neo-Nazi party that captured a sizable parliamentary presence in Greece, while terrorizing and beating immigrants, radicals, gay/lesbian/trans people and others, announced some weeks ago it was opening an office in Queens. The intention was to build support among the borough’s sizable diaspora community. With this came the launch of www.xanyc.com -- a site devoted to Golden Dawn's operations in New York. Soon thereafter the Ku Klux Klan issued a statement welcoming the party's US arrival, and white supremacist sites across the country have been aflutter with praise for the group's internationalization. Similar reports of attempts to set up offices in Melbourne and Montreal have also occurred. By all indications, the eastward transatlantic migration of emergent European fascism is both a possible harbinger and gruesome vignette most had resigned to the rear view. Within hours of the Golden Dawn announcing plans to open an office in New York, hundreds began organizing to prevent it. So far, these mobilizations have been successful. This article will delve into some of the organizing that has been taking place in New York, locate this in the recent political movements of the past year and point to some of the challenges that have emerged between new political practices and more traditional forms of organization. Over the past weeks an eclectic spectrum of New Yorkers have been gathering in each of the boroughs, from Manhattan cafes and the lounges at the City University of New York, to Brooklyn apartments, as well as parks and church basements in Queens. Often as relative strangers, people are coming together to discuss strategy and plan action. Turnaround has been swift. Flyers went up denouncing the organization and warning residents of its presence. Hackers allegedly affiliated with Anonymous disabled the fascists’ website and phones. And local politicians staged a press conference denouncing Golden Dawn's presence in Queens. Through conversations with the community center that first agreed to host Golden Dawn in Astoria, local residents and allied organizers were easily able to convince the center not to allow them to use their space. (The community center made clear that they did not understand who the group was since they entered under the pretext of fundraising for Greece, and did not reveal their political agenda.) With less than a week for outreach, over 200 people gathered in a local Astoria church for the first collectively called public meeting against Golden Dawn. This first meeting was organized by some people in the local Greek community, a recently-formed Greek Left alliance known as Aristeri Kinisi, Occupy Astoria-Long Island City, and other Occupy groups. A panel of speakers provided reports from the ground in Greece as well as an update on the groups status in New York. After some tense debate over more traditional top-down organizing templates, attendees began breaking out into working groups to sift out details of Golden Dawn's local activity, establish points of intervention, and propose counter-activity. This coming together in the church marked the beginning of a coalition, or network, of the various groupings, which now includes, among others, gay/lesbian/bi/trans groups, individuals in the labor movement, university professors, religious leaders, students, an anti-fascist group, Occupy individuals as well as Occupy Astoria, and of course, anarchist collectives and socialist groups. Queens is an auspicious terrain for such a narrative. According to recent census data, forty-one percent of its population is foreign-born and it ranks as the most ethnically and culturally diverse landscape on the planet. Irony and contradiction abound in the fact that the borough's unrivaled immigrant character is home to the massive Greek expatriate community in which a rapidly anti-immigrant party is now operating. Simultaneously, outrage against Golden Dawn's appearance in Astoria can be mapped across an array of affinities and communities that differ considerably in language, politics, practices, and culture. These gatherings are not uncomplicated, and have yielded predictable dissonance, at times. Greek immigrants stroll into organizing meetings toting hard-hats, and visibly strain to make out a young anarchist's words as he speaks, somewhat inexplicably and secretively through a bandanna. Socialists insist on tying resistance to Golden Dawn to a rejection of global austerity and demand an action at the Greek Consulate. Others are apprehensive about unwittingly providing the group with more of a profile than it warrants. Some at Queens College plan to have regular flyering and teach-ins about the history of fascism. And still many others want to begin doing outreach in the neighborhoods, flyering and speaking to people to let them know exactly who the Golden Dawn is – attempting to create an atmosphere of social condemnation. Likely, most or all of these things will happen. The debate in the first large meeting about whether to break into groups and organize more horizontally, or have the panelists answer the questions raised and end the meeting points to some of the organizational tensions and what the authors of this article see as a shift in forms of organization in New York. The financial crisis, and what many see as a crisis with the politics of representation and liberal democracy, rendered horizontal forms of organization, tied to direct action, a politics of necessity, and a diverse array of actors have made this approach very much their own. While there may not be physical encampments and seemingly daily marches, a cursory survey of continued foreclosure resistance, community-based rent strikes, wildcat labor actions, neighborhood assemblies, and anti-police brutality organizing suggests that, far from being dead, Occupy is changing forms and locations. Rather than waxing eulogistic, it may be more useful to think about forms of practice and ideas, and how they continue to emerge in different places, though for similar reasons. For example, when a few of the panelists insisted on closing the meeting, people participating called for a vote, and while the vast majority voted to organize in groups, a few panelists still tried to grab the microphone and close the meeting. At the same time the panelists were grabbing the mic, people by the dozens, stood up and began to organize in groups. There was a little shouting, but people self organized. This convergence, or clashing of the more traditional panel model, with the more horizontal form, evidenced what we believe is the only way we will organize to defeat fascism. If we learn anything from the history of fighting fascism, and even the current struggles in Greece, horizontal and traditional must continue to come together, even with clashes in the convergences, not to necessarily make one organization, but at least to coordinate and communicate, both centralized and decentralized. We are inspired to report that thus far this is what is taking place. For more information on upcoming meetings and working group projects go to the facebook page: Stop Golden Dawn ||||| Emboldened by its meteoric rise in Greece, the far-right Golden Dawn party is spreading its tentacles abroad, amid fears it is acting on its pledge to "create cells in every corner of the world". The extremist group, which forged links with British neo-Nazis when it was founded in the 1980s, has begun opening offices in Germany, Australia, Canada and the US. The international push follows successive polls that show Golden Dawn entrenching its position as Greece's third, and fastest growing, political force. First catapulted into parliament with 18 MPs last year, the ultra-nationalists captured 11.5% support in a recent survey conducted by polling company Public Issue. The group – whose logo resembles the swastika and whose members are prone to give Nazi salutes – has gone from strength to strength, promoting itself as the only force willing to take on the "rotten establishment". Amid rumours of backing from wealthy shipowners, it has succeeded in opening party offices across Greece. It is also concentrating on spreading internationally, with news last month that it had opened an office in Germany and planned to set up branches in Australia. The party's spokesman, Ilias Kasidiaris, said it had decided to establish cells "wherever there are Greeks". "People have understood that Chrysi Avgi [Golden Dawn] tells the truth," he told a Greek-language paper in Melbourne. "In our immediate sights and aims is the creation of an office and local organisation in Melbourne. In fact, very soon a visit of MPs to Australia is planned." But the campaign has met with disgust and derision by many prominent members of the Greek diaspora who represent communities in both the northern and southern hemispheres. "We don't see any gold in Golden Dawn," said Father Alex Karloutsos, one of America's leading Greek community figures, in Southampton, New York. "Nationalism, fascism, xenophobia are not part of our spiritual or cultural heritage." But Golden Dawn is hoping to tap into the deep well of disappointment and fury felt by Greeks living abroad, in the three years since the debt-stricken nation was plunged into crisis. "Golden Dawn is not like other parties in Greece. From its beginnings, in the early 80s, it always had one eye abroad," said Dimitris Psarras, whose book, Golden Dawn's Black Bible, chronicles the organisation since its creation by Nikos Michaloliakos, an overt supporter of the colonels who oversaw seven years of brutal anti-leftist dictatorship until the collapse of military rule in 1974. "Like-minded groups in Europe and Russia have given the party ideological, and sometimes financial, support to print books and magazines. After years of importing nazism, it now wants to export nazism," added Psarras. By infiltrating communities abroad, the far-rightists were attempting not only to shore up their credibility but also to find extra funding and perhaps even potential votes if Greeks abroad ever won the right to cast ballots in elections. "[Golden Dawn] not only wants to become the central pole of a pan-European alliance of neo-Nazis, even if in public it will hotly deny that," claimed Psarras, who said party members regularly met with neo-Nazis from Germany, Italy and Romania. "It wants to spread its influence worldwide." With its 300,000-strong community, Melbourne has pride of place in the constellation of Greek-populated metropolises that dot a diaspora officially estimated at around 7 million. As part of its international push, Golden Dawn has also focused on the US, a magnet for migrants for generations, and Canada, which attracted tens of thousands of Greeks after Greece's devastating 1946-49 civil war. "It's a well-studied campaign," said Anastasios Tamis, Australia's pre-eminent ethnic Greek historian. "There is a large stock of very conservative people here – former royalists, former loyalists to the junta, that sort of thing – who are very disappointed at what has been happening in Greece and are trying to find a means to express it. They are nationalists who feel betrayed by Greece over issues like Macedonia, Cyprus and [the Greek minority] in Voreio Epirus [southern Albania], who cannot see the fascistic part of this party. Golden Dawn is trying to exploit them." The younger generation — children of agrarian and unskilled immigrants – were also being targeted, he said. "They're the generation who were born here and grew up here and know next to nothing about Greece, its history and social and economic background. They're easy prey and Golden Dawn will capitalise on their ignorance." Tamis, who admits that some of his students support the organisation, does not think the group will gain traction even if Australia's far-right party has been quick to embrace it. But the prospect of Golden Dawn descending on the country has clearly sent tremors through the Greek community. "This is a multicultural society. They are not wanted or welcome here," said one prominent member, requesting anonymity when talk turned to the group. Greek Australian leftists have begun collecting protest signatures to bring pressure on the Australia immigration minister, Brendan O'Connor, to prohibit Golden Dawn MPs from entering the country. In a statement urging the government not to give the deputies visas, they said the extremists had to be stopped "from spreading their influence within the Greek community and threatening the multicultural society that Greek Australians and other migrants have fought to defend". The neo-Nazis have been given a similar reception in Canada, where the party opened a chapter last October. Despite getting the father of champion sprinter Nicolas Macrozonaris to front it, the group was quickly denounced by Greek Canadians as "a black mark". The culture of intolerance that has allowed racially motivated violence to flourish in Greece – with black-clad Golden Dawn members being blamed for a big rise in attacks on immigrants – had, they said, no place in a country that prides itself on liberal values. "Their philosophy and ideology does not appeal to Greeks living here," insisted Father Lambros Kamperidis, a Greek Orthodox priest in Montreal. "We all got scared when we saw they were giving a press conference. But it was a deplorable event and as soon as we heard their deplorable views they were condemned by community leaders and the church." "We are all immigrants in Canada," added Kamperidis, referring to Golden Dawn's tactic of tapping into anti-immigrant resentment. "The conditions that apply in Greece do not apply here, so there is no justification for the party to flourish. The really bad thing is that in opening here it gives the impression, to people who don't know the situation, that it is supported by a lot of Greeks, which is not the case. It has hurt Greece, the Greek cause, and Greeks' reputation more than anything else." Despite the resistance, the far-rightists have made concerted efforts to move elsewhere, with Golden Dawn supporters saying Toronto is next. But the biggest push by far to date has been in the US. As home to close to 3 million citizens of Greek heritage, America has the diaspora's largest community. At first, cadres worked undercover, organising clothes sales and other charitable events without stating their true affiliation. Stickers and posters then began to appear around the New York suburb of Astoria before the organisation opened a branch there. But while Greek Americans have some of the strongest ties of any community to their homeland, senior figures have vehemently denounced the organisation for not only being incongruous with Greece's struggle against fascism, during one of Europe's most brutal Nazi occupations, but utterly alien to their own experience as immigrants. "These people and their principles will never be accepted in our community. Their beliefs are alien to our beliefs and way of life," said Nikos Mouyiaris, co-founder of the Chicago-based Hellenic American Leadership Council (HALC), whose mission is to promote human rights and democratic values. The victims of often violent persecution at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan as well as wider discrimination (in Florida in the 1920s restaurant noticeboards declared "no dogs or Greeks allowed") Greek Americans proudly recount how, almost alone among ethnic minorities, they actively participated in the civil rights movement, their spiritual leader Archbishop Iakovos daring to march alongside Martin Luther King. "Our history as a diaspora in the US has been marked by our fight against racism," said Mouyiaris. Many in the diaspora believe, like Endy Zemenides who heads HALC, that Golden Dawn has deluded itself into believing it is a permanent force because of its soaring popularity on the back of the economic crisis. "The reality is that it is a fleeting by-product of failed austerity measures and the social disruption this austerity has caused," he said. In Greece, where Golden Dawn has begun to recruit in schools, there are fears of complacency. Drawing parallels with the 1930s Weimar period and the rise of Hitler's National Socialist German Workers' party, the historian Mark Mazower recently warned against underestimating the threat posed by a party whose use of violence was so disturbing. "Unfortunately, the Greek state does not seem to realise the urgency of the situation," he told an audience in Athens. After spending almost 30 years following Golden Dawn, Psarras agrees. Only weeks ago, he claimed, Michaloliakos held talks in the Greek parliament with two German neo-Nazis posing as journalists. Golden Dawn rejected the claim as "old mud". "It is an extremely dangerous phenomenon and do I think it will get worse? Yes I do," Psarras said, lamenting that, with living standards plummeting, the organisation was opening offices in traditional middle-class neighbourhoods. There remained a simple fact too big to ignore: in 2009 the party was a political pariah, gaining a mere 0.29 % of the vote; today it had global ambitions. "Ten years ago, if you had said Golden Dawn would become the third biggest force in Greece, you'd be called crazy," said Psarras. "Now look where it is."

Greece's fiercely anti-immigrant Golden Dawn party has a new group it's targeting for membership: emigrants. A rep for the party (which uses a swastika-like logo) says it has decided to create cells "wherever there are Greeks"; it intends to set up offices in Germany, Australia, Canada, and the US to seek recruits among a Greek diaspora estimated to number 7 million, the Guardian reports. The neo-Nazis' biggest push so far has been in the US, home to around 3 million people of Greek heritage, many of whom have retained close ties to their homeland. And while the party has reportedly opened a branch in Germany, Alternet notes that an attempt to open an office in Astoria, New York, didn't go so well. Greek community leaders in the US have angrily denounced the organization, saying Golden Dawn's beliefs are not welcome in a community that experienced persecution at the hands of the KKK and took part in the civil rights struggle, with spiritual leader Archbishop Iakovos marching alongside Martin Luther King. "These people and their principles will never be accepted in our community. Their beliefs are alien to our beliefs and way of life," says the co-founder of the Hellenic American Leadership Council.

North Korea Heightens Nuclear Tensions: The country’s leadership strives to gain leverage in its escalating standoff with the United States and its allies. SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea announced plans on Tuesday to restart a mothballed nuclear reactor, the latest in a series of provocations by its leader, Kim Jong-un , to elicit a muted response from American officials, who believe they can wait out Mr. Kim’s threats until he realizes his belligerent behavior will not force South Korea or the United States into making any concessions. “Right now, they’re testing the proposition that we’ll choose peace and quiet, and put it on our MasterCard,” said a senior American official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the administration’s internal calculations. “When they get through this cycle, they will have gotten no return on their investment.” Secretary of State John Kerry, using time-tested diplomatic language, said North Korea’s plan to restart the reactor would be a “provocative act” and “a direct violation of their international obligations.” Speaking in Washington after his first meeting with South Korea’s foreign minister, Yun Byung-se, Mr. Kerry reaffirmed the determination of the United States to defend its ally. American officials still worry about the consequences of any miscalculation, given the hair-trigger tensions on the Korean Peninsula and Mr. Kim’s inexperience at this type of brinkmanship. The top American commander in South Korea, Gen. James D. Thurman, called the situation “tense” and “volatile” in an interview with ABC News. But the senior official predicted that North Korea would eventually back down, as Mr. Kim’s need for food aid and hard currency outweighed the domestic political gains from his threats to shoot missiles at American cities. “The North Koreans want the international community to feed their people, fuel their factories and fill their bank accounts,” the official said. “If North Korea were a self-sufficient enterprise, we would have a much bigger problem on our hands.” Still, the announcements by the North’s General Department of Atomic Energy were troubling on a couple of levels: The plan to restart the reactor at the main nuclear complex in Yongbyon reverses gains from a short-lived 2007 nuclear disarmament deal with the United States. And its plan to use a uranium-enrichment plant on the site for the weapons program gives it two ways of producing fuel for bombs, since the reactor produces plutonium. The announcements came two days after Mr. Kim said his nuclear weapons were not a bargaining chip and called for expanding the arsenal in “quality and quantity” during a meeting of the Central Committee of the ruling Workers’ Party of Korea. It was the first time North Korea had said it would use the uranium plant to make nuclear weapons. Since unveiling it to a visiting American scholar in 2010, North Korea had insisted it was running the plant to make reactor fuel to generate electricity, though Washington suggested that its purpose was bombs. The five-megawatt, graphite-moderated reactor, which experts say would require significant effort to bring back on line, had been the main source of plutonium bomb fuel until it was shut down under the deal with the United States. North Korean engineers are believed to have extracted enough plutonium for six to eight bombs from the spent fuel unloaded from the reactor. It is unknown whether North Korea’s third nuclear test in February used some of its limited stockpile of plutonium or fuel from its uranium-enrichment program, whose scale and history remain a mystery. Mr. Kim has recently raised tensions with a torrent of threats to attack the United States and South Korea with pre-emptive nuclear strikes. But this week, he appeared to shift his tone slightly by reiterating that his nuclear weapons were a deterrent that helped his country focus on more pressing domestic economic issues. The White House said it was reaching out to China and Russia to encourage them to use their influence to urge restraint on Pyongyang. The senior American official said the new Chinese leadership, led by President Xi Jinping, was frustrated by Mr. Kim’s belligerence, which it viewed as a threat to China’s own security. And Mr. Yun of South Korea said the Chinese had been cooperative since the passage of the latest United Nations sanctions. China’s official Xinhua news agency issued comments from Deputy Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui that did not expressly single out North Korea but nonetheless signaled deepening worry about its actions and the response from the United States and its allies. “We do not want to see war or turmoil break out on the peninsula, and we oppose provocative words and actions by any side,” Mr. Zhang said, using more urgent language than his government has tended to use until now. On Wednesday, North Korea blocked traffic across the heavily armed border to an industrial park it has run with South Korea for eight years. It was unclear whether the action resulted from a communications problem or represented the end of one of the last symbols of North-South cooperation. Choe Sang-hun reported from Seoul, and Mark Landler from Washington. ||||| North Korea vowed Tuesday to restart a nuclear reactor that can make one bomb's worth of plutonium a year, escalating tensions already raised by near daily warlike threats against the United States and South Korea. The North's plutonium reactor was shut down in 2007 as part of international nuclear disarmament talks that have since stalled. The declaration of a resumption of plutonium production _ the most common fuel in nuclear weapons _ and other facilities at the main Nyongbyon nuclear complex will boost fears in Washington and among its allies about North Korea's timetable for building a nuclear-tipped missile that can reach the United States, technology it is not currently believed to have. A spokesman for the North's General Department of Atomic Energy said that scientists will begin work at a uranium enrichment plant and a graphite-moderated 5 megawatt reactor, which generates spent fuel rods laced with plutonium and is the core of the Nyongbyon nuclear complex. The unidentified spokesman said the measure is part of efforts to resolve the country's acute electricity shortage but also for "bolstering up the nuclear armed force both in quality and quantity," according to a statement carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. Pyongyang conducted its third nuclear test in February, prompting a new round of U.N. sanctions that have infuriated its leaders and led to a torrent of threatening rhetoric. The United States has sent nuclear-capable bombers and stealth jets to participate in annual South Korean-U.S. military drills that the allies call routine but that Pyongyang claims are invasion preparations. North Korea has declared that the armistice ending the Korean War in 1953 is void, threatened to launch nuclear and rocket strikes on the United States and, most recently, declared at a high-level government assembly that making nuclear arms and a stronger economy are the nation's top priorities. The threats are seen as efforts to force policy changes in Seoul and Washington and increase domestic loyalty to young North Korean leader Kim Jong Un by portraying him as a powerful military force. "North Korea is keeping tension and crisis alive to raise stakes ahead of possible future talks with the United States," said Hwang Jihwan, a North Korea expert at the University of Seoul. "North Korea is asking the world, `What are you going to do about this?'" North Korea added the 5-megawatt, graphite-moderated reactor to its nuclear complex at Nyongbyon in 1986 after seven years of construction. The country began building a 50-megawatt and a 200 megawatt reactor in 1984, but construction was suspended under a 1994 nuclear deal with Washington. North Korea says the facility is aimed at generating electricity. It takes about 8,000 fuel rods to run the reactor. Reprocessing the spent fuel rods after a year of reactor operation could yield about 7 kilograms of plutonium _ enough to make at least one nuclear bomb, experts say. Nuclear bombs can be produced with highly enriched uranium or with plutonium. North Korea is believed to have exploded plutonium devices in its first two nuclear tests, in 2006 and 2009. In 2010, the North unveiled a long-suspected uranium enrichment program, which would give it another potential route to make bomb fuel. Uranium worries outsiders because the technology needed to make highly enriched uranium bombs is much easier to hide than huge plutonium facilities. But experts say plutonium is considered better for building small warheads, which North Korea needs if it is going to put them on missiles. Analysts say they don't believe North Korea currently has mastered such miniaturization technology. Scientist and nuclear expert Siegfried Hecker has estimated that Pyongyang has 24 to 42 kilograms of plutonium _ enough for perhaps four to eight rudimentary bombs similar to the plutonium weapon used on Nagasaki in World War II. It's not known whether the North's latest atomic test, in February, used highly enriched uranium or plutonium stockpiles. South Korea and other countries have so far failed to detect radioactive elements that may have leaked from the test and which could determine what kind of device was used. "North Korea is dispelling any remaining uncertainties about its intention for developing nuclear arms. It is making it clear that its nuclear arms program is the essence of its national security and that it's not negotiable," said Sohn Yong-woo, a professor at the Graduate School of National Defense Strategy of Hannam University in South Korea. "North Korea is more confident about itself than ever after the third nuclear test," Sohn said. "That confidence is driving the leadership toward more aggressive nuclear development." __ Associated Press writer Sam Kim contributed to this report. ||||| 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. 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. North Korea Threatens More Nuclear Arms North Korea said it would restart its only nuclear reactor to provide plutonium for its weapons program, further ratcheting up tensions on the Korean peninsula and drawing swift international criticism. “Nuclear threats are not a game,” said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at a news conference in Andorra. “The current crisis has already gone too far.” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry called the North’s recent belligerent rhetoric “unacceptable” and said the U.S. will defend itself as well as South Korea and Japan from any threat from the North. Experts said it would take many months for North Korea to get the reactor operational again and much longer to extract enough plutonium to make weapons. The reactor at the Yongbyon plant, 55 miles north of Pyongyang, was closed in 2007, and the North Koreans destroyed the cooling tower the following summer as part of an aid-for-disarmament deal that soon collapsed. The North’s move came after rapidly deteriorating relations between Pyongyang and Seoul and after several symbolic but muscular U.S. military maneuvers on the Korean peninsula. Defense experts said the Obama administration’s flexing of military muscle has so far had the intended effect of reassuring Seoul, but that a risk remains that rising U.S. military pressure could provoke Pyongyang into a rash move. In addition to flying B-52 and B-2 bombers over South Korea and putting a pair of F-22 fighter planes on display, the U.S. also has begun to reinforce regional defenses, moving two guided missile destroyers into position off the coast of South Korea to boost missile defenses. Administration officials have defended their approach as necessary, given recent advances in North Korea’s weapons capabilities as well as the need to reassure a more nationalistic government in Seoul that Washington takes the threat seriously. Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said the U.S. was “in the business” of assuring South Korea that the U.S. will defend them. “We are looking for the temperature to be taken down on the Korean peninsula,” he said. Michael Green, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who oversaw Asian affairs at the White House during the George W. Bush administration, also praised the current get-tough approach with North Korea. “I think it was appropriate and well-coordinated with South Korea and Japan,” Mr. Green said. Pyongyang’s announcement on Tuesday was quickly criticized by its neighbors. South Korea’s Foreign Ministry spokesman called Pyongyang’s announcement “very regrettable.” In Beijing, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said China had expressed its “regret” over Pyongyang’s declaration, though he reiterated Beijing’s previous hesitant approach on international sanctions, saying they “cannot solve the problem fundamentally.” Japan’s Chief Cabinet Speaker Yoshihide Suga told reporters that restarting the Yongbyon nuclear plant “would be a grave concern for Japan.” The U.N.’s Mr. Ban urged North Korea again “to fully abide by the relevant Security Council resolutions and refrain from making further provocative measures.” Satellite imagery in recent months has shown construction work at the Yongbyon plant but it isn’t clear if North Korea has already started work to put its reactor back online. Many outside analysts believe North Korea sees its nuclear threat as a negotiating tool to force the U.S. and other countries to provide it with money and security guarantees, and restarting its 1980s-era reactor would add further pressure to the North’s foes. “I consider this a pretty serious move by Pyongyang in the series of steps it has been taking to push the U.S. toward some form of negotiation,” said Narushige Michishita, an associate professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo. The five-megawatt reactor was North Korea’s only source of plutonium for its weapons program. North Korea revealed a uranium-enrichment facility at the plant in 2010, another route to provide fissile material for nuclear weapons. North Korea said through its state news agency that work to restart all facilities at Yongbyon will be “put into practice without delay.” North Korea has said repeatedly in recent days that its nuclear weapons program is now nonnegotiable and will be built up in order to provide security from what it sees as threats from the U.S. and South Korea. On Feb. 12, North Korea staged its third test of a nuclear weapon, a move that triggered an escalation in tensions on the peninsula and was followed by a series of provocative threats from Pyongyang. North Korea is thought to have enough plutonium-based fissile material for as many as a dozen small bombs. It isn’t clear if it has been able to develop a uranium-based bomb, but experts have speculated that it used uranium in its February test. The uranium-enrichment facility at Yongbyon is North Korea’s only declared such facility, but experts suspect Pyongyang may have other enrichment centers. North Korea has threatened to attack Washington with a nuclear weapon but it isn’t thought to be able to mount a nuclear weapon on a missile yet, or to be able to hit the U.S. mainland. Since its first test of a nuclear bomb in 2006, North Korea has repeatedly asked the U.S. and other major countries to recognize it as a nuclear-weapons state and negotiate with it as an equal power. “North Korea wants to show its willingness to become a nuclear power not only verbally but also in action,” said Kim Yong-hyun, a North Korea expert at Dongguk University in Seoul. North Korea also said on Tuesday the Yongbyon reactor would provide electricity for the energy-starved country. The nation has frequent power outages because of its weak energy infrastructure. –Christopher Rhoads, Andrew Browne and Eleanor Warnock contributed to this article. Write to Alastair Gale at [email protected] ||||| The U.N. chief says he fears North Korea is on a collision course with other nations that could lead to war. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says the isolated Asian nation appears to be "on a collision course with the international community" amid rising tensions on the Korean Peninsula. Ban, a former South Korean foreign minister, said Tuesday in Andorra "the current crisis has already gone too far" because of escalating tensions raised by North Korea's threats of war almost daily against the United States and South Korea. He said international negotiations are urgently needed but he is "convinced that no one intends to attack" North Korea. Pyongyang has sought disarmament-for-aid talks with Washington and more domestic loyalty by portraying North Korean leader Kim Jong Un as a powerful commander.

The latest in the almost-daily series of threats from Pyongyang is a vow to restart its Yongbyon nuclear reactor and other facilities to "bolster up the nuclear armed force" and provide electricity, according to a rep for the country's Department of Atomic Energy. The Yongbyon reactor was shut down as part of a 2007 aid-for-disarmament deal, and experts believe it will take North Korea at least a year to get its only source of plutonium operational again, the Wall Street Journal reports. AP notes that the reactor can make one bomb's worth of plutonium a year. In a weekend speech whose transcript was published today, Kim Jong Un referred to nukes as a necessary element in the country's quest to improve its economy, notes the New York Times: "Now that we have become a proud nuclear state, we have gained a favorable ground from which we can concentrate all our finance and efforts in building the economy and improving the people's lives based on the strong deterrent against war," he said. But war is exactly what UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon fears, reports the AP; he today expressed concerns that North Korea is "on a collision course with the international community" and that "the current crisis has already gone too far." He pushed for international negotiations.

Effective February 28, 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady) requires firearms licensees, such as licensed firearms dealers, to, among other things, request a presale background check on handgun purchasers. Brady calls for implementation in two phases. Under phase I, or the interim provisions, the checks are to be conducted by the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) in the purchaser’s residence community to determine, on the basis of available records, if the individual is legally prohibited from buying the firearm under the provisions of federal, state, or local law. The sale may not be completed for 5 business days unless the dealer receives an approval from the CLEO before that time. If the CLEO does not contact the dealer within the 5-day period, the dealer may make the sale unless the dealer has reason to believe the transaction would be unlawful. Under the phase II permanent provisions effective November 30, 1998, the 5-day waiting period requirement terminates and presale inquiries for all firearms sales will be made only to a national background check system that will be operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Since early 1987, Congress has considered various versions of legislation restricting access to handguns. These legislative efforts were labeled “Brady” bills—referring to James Brady, the Reagan administration press secretary who was disabled by a gunshot wound sustained during an attempted assassination of the President. Many of the early legislative efforts called for a waiting period for handgun purchases. The waiting period was designed, in most instances, to allow for the “opportunity” to conduct background checks, not the imposition of a mandatory background check requirement. Often, this opportunity meant that a copy of the application form was to be sent to the appropriate local law enforcement agency. In addition, the waiting period was described as providing a cooling-off period to deter impulse purchases. Brady opponents objected to the waiting period and offered amendments or substitute legislation typically calling for systems that would allow point-of-sale background checks to screen out criminals and not delay or otherwise interfere with the rights of law-abiding citizens to buy and own handguns. The current two-phased approach, first introduced in 1991 and described by its original sponsors as a compromise, (1) includes a waiting period that allows CLEOs time to conduct the background check required of themand (2) provides for the eventual point-of-sale background check system. To do this, Brady amends the Gun Control Act of 1968, which contains the principal federal restrictions on commerce in firearms and ammunition. Since passage of the 1968 act, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) has licensed and regulated manufacturers, importers, dealers, and pawnbrokers in firearms. Under the 1968 act, as amended, those licensees (hereinafter referred to as gun dealers) are prohibited from selling firearms or ammunition to anyone they know or have reasonable cause to believe (1) has been convicted of (or is under indictment for), in any court, a crime punishable by more than 1 year in prison; (2) is a fugitive; (3) is an unlawful user of a controlled substance; (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution; (5) is an illegal alien; (6) is a dishonorably discharged veteran of the Armed Forces; or (7) is a person who has renounced U.S. citizenship. Under the 1968 act, persons purchasing a firearm from a licensed dealer are required to certify their eligibility, but no background checks or other verification of the information supplied is required. In contrast, while including the 1968 prohibitions and also requiring buyers to certify their eligibility, Brady is the first federal legislation providing for presale background checks to verify such eligibility. “restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child.” Under Brady’s interim provisions, a prospective handgun purchaser must complete a form—generally referred to as the Brady form (see app. I)—giving his or her name, date of birth, and residence address and certifying that he or she is not a member of various categories prohibited from buying a firearm. Then, within 1 business day, the gun dealer must provide notice of the form’s contents to the CLEO of the area in which the buyer’s residence is located. The CLEO must then “make a reasonable effort” to ascertain within 5 business days whether the sale would violate federal, state, or local law, including research in whatever state and local record-keeping systems are available and the FBI-operated National Crime Information Center files (see fig. 1.1). The CLEO may allow the sale to proceed at any time during the waiting period by advising the gun dealer that the applicant has not been determined to be a prohibited person. Alternatively, if not notified to the contrary, the gun dealer may assume that the purchaser is not disqualified and complete the sale upon expiration of the 5-day period. However, if the search reveals that the applicant is ineligible to receive a handgun, the CLEO is to notify the dealer (without providing the reason) that the sale is denied. The CLEO may also instruct the dealer to refer the buyer to the CLEO if the buyer has questions or otherwise challenges the denial. Generally, such questions or challenges are sometimes referred to as “administrative appeals,” even though practices are somewhat less formal than this term implies. For instance, by providing the law enforcement officer additional documentation, a buyer may be able to reverse a denial that initially resulted from inaccurate or incomplete information in the databases searched. Brady also provided a remedy for erroneous denial of a firearm. Generally, any person denied a firearm due to the provision of erroneous information or who was not prohibited from receipt of a firearm may bring action to direct the correction of the erroneous information or that the transfer be approved. In any such action, the court may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs. Finally, under Brady’s interim provisions, certain specified transactions in states that screen handgun purchasers—e.g., through a permit system or some other procedure for conducting criminal background checks—are exempt from Brady’s waiting period. States that operate an alternative system that meets certain standards have been designated as Brady-alternative states by ATF. As of February 28, 1995, 24 states had systems in place that ATF determined were acceptable alternatives to Brady. Residents, dealers, and law enforcement officials in the other 26 states—the so-called “Brady states”—are subject to Brady’s waiting period requirements (see app. II). “With 285,000 licensees and only 240 ATF inspectors to check their premises and the records that they keep to ensure compliance, it would take approximately 10 years for us to inspect all the gun dealers.” More recently, the number of licensed dealers has begun to decline—to about 220,000 by the end of March 1995—partly as a result of the increase in the license fee required by the Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993. Another contributing factor is the 1994 Crime Act, which required that gun dealers certify compliance with state and local law as a condition for a license. On the other hand, even if ATF had more resources to inspect gun dealers, there are legislated limits on the frequency of compliance inspections. For instance, under 18 U.S.C. 923, absent reasonable cause or a warrant, ATF can inspect or examine a licensed dealer “not more than once during any 12-month period” to ensure compliance with record-keeping requirements. Finally, while gun dealers are required to maintain a copy of completed Brady forms for at least 5 years, the dealers are not required to report information from the forms to federal authorities. Brady allows CLEOs to retain forms for individuals denied a purchase but requires that all other forms be destroyed within 20 days. CLEOs also are not required to maintain or report data. In fact, various statutory provisions restrict the use of firearms-related information and prohibit the establishment of systems to register firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions. Thus, no data were readily available that would allow for monitoring trends in handgun purchases and denials or otherwise judge the impact of Brady. In July 1995, the Department of Justice issued a report on guns and crime in the United States. Among other information, the report noted that: • Over 40 million handguns have been produced in the United States since 1973. Most guns are not used to commit crimes. Further, most crime is not committed with guns. However, most gun crime is committed with handguns. • During 1993, there were 4.4 million murders, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults in the United States, and more than one-fourth of these violent crimes involved the use of a gun. • From 1985 through 1994, the FBI received an annual average of over 274,000 reports of stolen guns. By definition, all stolen guns are available to criminals. • At the request of police agencies, ATF’s National Tracing Center will trace firearms back to their original point of sale. More than three-quarters of the 83,000 guns used in crime that ATF traced for law enforcement agencies in 1994 were handguns. Policymakers recognize that even a perfect felon identification system may not keep felons from obtaining firearms and that Brady may not directly result in measurable reductions of gun-related crimes. For example, Brady does not apply to transactions between nonlicensed individuals. Tens of millions of handguns are already in private hands. Thus, the apparently sizable numbers of handgun transactions that take place between private individuals, such as at gun shows and even “on the street,” are not subject to Brady’s requirements. In fact, the purpose of Brady is to prevent convicted felons and other ineligible persons from purchasing firearms from licensed dealers. Opponents of Brady point to a 1991 survey of state prison inmates, which showed that 73 percent of those who had ever possessed a handgun did not purchase it from a gun dealer. Generally, opponents contend that it is a mistake to claim Brady prevents criminals from obtaining handguns since anyone denied a purchase from a licensed dealer can easily obtain a gun from another source and will almost certainly do so. Also, denied applicants may have friends or spouses without a criminal record make the purchases from dealers for them. On the other hand, Brady proponents use the same study to counter that 27 percent of those inmates surveyed obtained their firearms from licensed gun dealers and argue that no criminals should be able to buy guns from licensed dealers. Proponents acknowledge that criminal records checks alone will not prevent felons from obtaining firearms but could reduce dealer sales to disqualified persons; complement other crime control measures, such as stiffer mandatory sentences for firearms offenses; and clamp down on illegal gun trafficking. Our self-initiated review of the first full year of Brady implementation was designed to determine the following: • How frequently were the 5-day waiting period and background checks resulting in criminals and other ineligible individuals being denied the opportunity to purchase handguns from federally licensed dealers? (See ch. 2.) • To what extent had handgun purchase denials resulted in federal follow-up enforcement actions (e.g., arrests and prosecutions) against convicted felons and other ineligible purchasers who falsely completed the Brady form? (See ch. 2.) • What were the effects of the various legal challenges to Brady? For instance, we were particularly interested in whether background checks of handgun purchasers were being conducted in those jurisdictions represented by CLEOs who had filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of Brady. If no background checks were being conducted in certain jurisdictions, we wanted to determine why and what alternative arrangements were permissible or practical. (See ch. 3.) To obtain a broad understanding of these phase I implementation issues, we contacted a number of relevant governmental and private organizations. For example, we interviewed ATF headquarters and district officials responsible for promulgating Brady regulations and providing training and guidance to CLEOs and federally licensed gun dealers. We obtained additional national perspectives by contacting the following industry and special interest organizations: Americans for Effective Law Enforcement; the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Gun Owners of America; Handgun Control, Inc.; the International Association of Chiefs of Police; the Law Enforcement Alliance of America; the National Rifle Association; and the National Sheriffs’ Association. To obtain information on how frequently the 5-day waiting period and background checks were resulting in denials, we contacted local law enforcement agencies in several Brady states. Our results are not projectable to the universe of denials nationwide. We did not use a nationally projectable sample because (1) it would have involved contacting hundreds of law enforcement agencies nationwide, (2) Brady was less than 1 year old when we began our data gathering, and (3) Brady did not impose any record-keeping requirements on CLEOs. We judgmentally selected 20 state and local law enforcement agencies in 12 (46 percent) of the 26 Brady states. Selection factors—which are discussed in more detail below—included data availability, jurisdictional variety, denial rate variety, and geographic dispersion. In seven of the Brady states we contacted, a state agency conducted background checks for all jurisdictions within the state. In the other five Brady states (13 jurisdictions), local agencies were responsible for the background checks. Also, as noted in table 1.1, 14 of the 20 agencies we contacted were surveyed earlier by ATF for Treasury’s interim report on Brady’s impact. Brady does not require any reports from CLEOs or gun dealers. In fact, Congress has passed various statutory provisions that restrict the use of firearms-related information and prohibit the establishment of systems to register firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions. Thus, no data were readily available for monitoring national trends in handgun purchases and denials. Consequently, we relied on the voluntary cooperation and judgment of selected state and local law enforcement officials to provide data on the number and results of Brady background checks performed in their respective jurisdictions. We did not attempt to determine whether the denials were appropriate. For its initial Brady report, ATF had already developed cooperative working relationships with 16 CLEOs in 8 states. Thus, after first checking with ATF officials, we selected 14 of those 16 jurisdictions to build upon the already established relationships. We did not select Gwinnett County, Georgia, and Providence, Rhode Island, because those jurisdictions do not maintain cumulative data. Two of the 16 CLEOs selected by ATF have statewide (Kentucky and Ohio) responsibilities for performing background checks of prospective handgun buyers. In addition to selecting these two states, to provide broader coverage we also selected the other Brady states that have a centralized agency with statewide responsibility for performing background checks—Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, South Carolina, and West Virginia. Finally, because press accounts listed the Fort Worth, Texas, Police Department as having one of the highest handgun denial rates in the nation, we included that jurisdiction in our review, which resulted in a total of 20 jurisdictions. Then, from each of the 20 applicable law enforcement agencies, we obtained available data on the number of Brady handgun purchase forms processed and the number denied during the first year of Brady implementation, February 28, 1994, through February 28, 1995. We used this information to calculate jurisdiction-specific denial rates, as well as an overall denial rate for the 20 jurisdictions. Although we did not verify the accuracy of the data obtained, during our on-site visits to three jurisdictions—Arkansas; South Carolina; and Fort Worth, Texas—and in numerous follow-up telephone calls with the other 17 jurisdictions, we discussed the procedures for gathering and compiling the data and have no reason to believe the data are unreliable. However, the denial rates we calculated are not projectable beyond the jurisdictions covered. In contacting the law enforcement officials in these jurisdictions, we also inquired about the availability and completeness of databases to conduct background checks. Our inquiries included questions covering criminal history databases, as well as possible data sources covering drug users, illegal aliens, and other categories of ineligible purchasers. Regarding criminal history databases, for example, we were interested in what course of action was taken if the background search found incomplete records—particularly records showing a felony arrest but not showing a disposition. Also, besides quantifying, we were interested in categorizing and analyzing the various reasons used by law enforcement officials in the 20 jurisdictions to deny handgun purchases. However, we found that only 15 of the jurisdictions maintained records (some more detailed than others) showing reasons for denials. Thus, our categorization and analysis of denial reasons is limited to these 15 jurisdictions—6 states, 3 counties, 2 parishes, and 4 cities. Moreover, only four of these jurisdictions—two states, a county, and a city—had sufficiently detailed information to allow us to quantify the number of felony-related denials involving violent crime convictions or indictments. Regarding follow-up enforcement actions on convicted felons and others who falsely complete Brady handgun purchase forms, we interviewed DOJ officials and reviewed documents prepared by DOJ officials responsible for establishing law enforcement policy guidance. From DOJ officials, as well as from ATF headquarters officials, we obtained available information on the number of cases referred to U.S. Attorneys by ATF field offices, the number declined for prosecution by U.S. Attorneys, and the number actually prosecuted by U.S. Attorneys. We then analyzed summary information provided by ATF on the prosecuted cases. The summary information covered the nature of the charges, the individuals’ past criminal histories, and any resulting convictions and sentences. For example, we were interested in whether the defendants were charged only with lying on the Brady form, or whether form falsification was an ancillary charge added in with other charges. Similarly, we were interested in whether the defendants had criminal histories showing convictions for violent felonies. Finally, we were interested in the types of sentences received by convicted defendants. In studying implications of the various legal challenges to Brady, we first reviewed the applicable federal district court decisions. Then, to determine the Department of Justice’s position on the legal challenges, we interviewed the Acting Assistant Attorney General, as well as his Special Counsel. Also, we interviewed staff from ATF’s headquarters and Office of Chief Counsel as well as ATF officials in field offices encompassing jurisdictions in which CLEOs have challenged Brady. In so doing, we obtained information and views on (1) whether background checks have been or are being performed in those jurisdictions in which CLEOs have challenged Brady; (2) what ATF’s statutory and/or operational responsibility is with respect to CLEOs and their performance of Brady background checks; (3) ATF’s role with respect to the designation of alternate CLEOs to perform the Brady background checks; and (4) what actions, if any, ATF has taken regarding Brady background checks on prospective handgun buyers in the jurisdictions involved in the lawsuits. We conducted our review in Arkansas; Georgia; South Carolina; Texas; and Washington, D.C., from July 1994 through August 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The Justice Department, as well as Treasury and ATF jointly, provided written comments on a draft of this report. These comments are included in appendixes V and IV. We incorporated technical and clarifying comments in the report where appropriate and discussed the more substantive comments at the ends of chapters 2 and 3. To assess Brady’s results, we calculated handgun purchase denial rates and tried to determine if follow-up enforcement actions were being taken. We and ATF surveyed jurisdictions to determine denial rates. ATF calculated an average denial rate of 4.7 percent in 16 jurisdictions for the first 3 months of Brady implementation and 3.5 percent in 30 jurisdictions for the first year of Brady. We calculated an average denial rate of 4.3 percent in 20 jurisdictions for the first year of Brady. In following up on reasons for denials, we determined that (1) most of the jurisdictions in our survey relied only on criminal history records and (2) comprehensive data on background check results were not available. We were not able to quantify follow-up enforcement actions due to the way cases were coded in DOJ’s databases, but we were able to determine that as of July 1995, at least seven Brady-related cases were successfully prosecuted. Comprehensive data on the number of handgun purchase applications and denials under Brady were not available. Brady contains no reporting requirements, so neither gun dealers nor law enforcement officers are required to accumulate and report statistics on the number of handgun purchase applications processed or denied. In fact, with respect to the protection of individual privacy rights, Brady contains certain prohibitions on the use of Brady-related background information as well as prohibiting the establishment of a registry of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions. Under Brady, after approving a handgun sale, the CLEO who conducted the background check must destroy all purchaser-related information, including the copy of the handgun purchase application form, ATF Form 5300.35 (see app. I for a copy of the form). Moreover, Brady does not require either CLEOs or gun dealers to record and report Brady-related statistics. As a result, the accumulation of data on the volume of and the reasons for handgun purchase denials is left to the discretion of the applicable CLEOs. Consequently, attempts to study the results or impact of Brady are largely dependent upon the voluntary cooperation of the CLEOs responsible for conducting the background checks. To develop a systematic approach for monitoring Brady’s impact on the acquisition and use of firearms, in September 1994 the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) entered into an agreement with the Regional Justice Information Service (REJIS). Under the terms of the agreement, REJIS is designing an information system, called the Firearms Inquiries Statistical System, to routinely collect data from volunteer samples of the estimated 22,000 local law enforcement officers within the Brady states and from state criminal history repositories, the FBI, and ATF. The primary objectives of this information system are to (1) identify, describe, and categorize the procedures used to implement Brady; (2) measure results of Brady in terms of the number of applications accepted and denied, the reasons for the denials, and the actions taken as a result of the denials; and (3) create a database to permit analyses of the use of firearms in the commission of crimes. BJS officials anticipate that initial output under the system will be available in early 1996. In the interim, ATF has conducted two limited-scope surveys in selected Brady states. The results of these surveys, as well as the results of our similarly limited-scope survey, are discussed in the following sections. ATF’s initial survey of Brady’s results covered approximately the first 3 months of implementation. In conducting the survey, ATF contacted state and local law enforcement officers representing 16 jurisdictions—2 states, 7 counties, 2 parishes, and 5 cities. For handgun purchase applications processed by the respective law enforcement officers within these 16 jurisdictions, ATF found that the overall denial rate was 4.7 percent. The report on ATF’s second survey of Brady’s results was issued on the first anniversary of the act’s effective date. In conducting this survey, which provided data covering the period March 1994 through January 1995, ATF contacted law enforcement officers representing 30 jurisdictions—7 states, 9 counties, 1 parish, 12 cities, and Puerto Rico. As table 2.1 shows, for handgun purchase applications processed by the respective law enforcement officers within these 30 jurisdictions, ATF found that the overall denial rate was 3.5 percent. “In its survey, ATF identified 15,506 handgun denials pursuant to the Brady Law. Of this number, 2,048 rejections were administratively appealed. Of these, 1,620 were resolved administratively, but ATF does not have information concerning the dispositions. ATF reports that two of the 15,506 denials were successfully appealed in court.” “ATF does not have any information concerning the basis for the denials or the reasons for any reversals of initial denials. As you are no doubt aware, under the Brady Law, the responsibility for determining whether an applicant seeking to purchase a pistol is eligible to do so rests with local Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs). ATF informs us that many CLEOs maintain no statistical data concerning the specific basis for a Brady denial and lack the resources for doing so. Accordingly, ATF has never requested the submission of such information and, in fact, lacks the authority to require its collection.” In conducting our survey to obtain data covering the first full year of Brady Act implementation, we contacted state and local law enforcement officers representing 20 jurisdictions—the 7 Brady states that have centralized background check procedures, 6 counties, 2 parishes, and 5 cities. As table 2.2 shows, for handgun purchase applications processed by the respective law enforcement officers within these 20 jurisdictions, we found that the overall denial rate was 4.3 percent. Our survey of 20 jurisdictions and ATF’s survey of 30 jurisdictions for its One-Year Progress Report (see table 2.1) include 11 jurisdictions covered in both surveys—the 7 Brady states that have centralized background check procedures; 2 counties (Dekalb County, Georgia, and Harris County, Texas); and 2 cities (Houston, Texas, and Seattle, Washington). Our data differ from ATF data, in part, because we surveyed a longer period—see, for example, the differences reported for Arizona and Kentucky. However, for Harris County and the city of Houston, we also include numerous denials for applications erroneously sent to these law enforcement agencies; these denials were not reported by ATF. Finally, the numbers of denials we report for Arkansas; Dekalb County, Georgia; and Ohio are lower than ATF’s numbers, in part, because our denial data were adjusted for successful appeals. Only 15 of the 20 jurisdictions we surveyed maintained records (some more detailed than others) showing reasons for denials. During the period covered by our survey (February 28, 1994, through February 28, 1995), the respective law enforcement officers within these 15 jurisdictions conducted background checks involving a total of 384,301 handgun purchase applications and denied 18,570, an overall denial rate of 4.8 percent. Figure 2.1 shows the denial rates across the 15 jurisdictions we contacted. Table 2.3 shows the number of denials by category for each of these 15 jurisdictions. Our review of total denials (18,570) for the 15 jurisdictions showed that 9,043, or 48.7 percent, were based on criminal history records (see table 2.3). Of the 9,043 criminal history denials, 8,299 (91.8 percent) were for either a felony indictment; a felony arrest (with no final disposition shown, e.g., dismissal, acquittal, or conviction); a felony conviction; or an outstanding felony warrant (see table III.1). Next, we attempted to determine how many of the felony-related denials involved violent crimes—aggravated assault, murder, rape, and robbery—as defined by the FBI. However, only 4 of the 15 jurisdictions had sufficiently detailed information for this analysis. Table 2.4 provides for these jurisdictions the number of violent crimes and violent crimes as a percentage of felony-related denials, total denials, and total applications. Among the 15 jurisdictions, we found differences regarding actions taken in response to records showing a felony arrest but not showing a disposition. Law enforcement officers in 4 jurisdictions denied a total of 365 handgun purchase applications based on records showing a felony arrest but not showing a disposition (see summary table III.1). The four jurisdictions are Arkansas (table III.3); Clayton County, Georgia (table III.4); Nevada (table III.9); and Abilene, Texas (table III.12). Generally, in such situations, the law enforcement officials told us it was incumbent upon the applicants to contact the appropriate law enforcement agency and provide evidence of a purchase-qualifying resolution of the arrest. Some of the other jurisdictions do not follow the practice of making denials on the basis of felony arrest records alone. For example, an official with the South Carolina State Law Enforcement Division told us that if a purchase-disqualifying disposition cannot be determined within 5 business days, the handgun sale is allowed to proceed. The official added that as of the end of March 1995, the Division had only one case in which (1) the disposition of a felony charge against a prospective handgun buyer could not be determined within 5 business days, (2) the applicant was allowed to purchase a handgun, and (3) case disposition information subsequently showed that the purchase should have been denied. Law enforcement officials from the Division reportedly retrieved the handgun from the purchaser. Misdemeanor warrants accounted for 452 (2.4 percent) of the 18,570 denials (see table III.1). These 452 denials represent 5.0 percent of the 9,043 criminal history denials. Of the 15 jurisdictions providing data on reasons for handgun purchase denials, 7 denied handgun purchases on the basis of outstanding misdemeanor warrants—4 states (Arizona, Arkansas,Kentucky, and South Carolina); 1 parish (Bossier Parish, Louisiana); and 2 cities (Fort Worth and Pasadena, Texas). Three of these 7 jurisdictions accounted for 380 (84.1 percent) of the misdemeanor warrant denials—Arizona had 272 (table III.2), the city of Fort Worth had 58 (table III.13), and the city of Pasadena had 50 (table III.16). In each of these jurisdictions, law enforcement officers told us that while neither state nor local laws prohibit misdemeanants from purchasing handguns, these persons are considered fugitives from justice, a prohibited category under Brady. In commenting on a draft of this report, Treasury and ATF said “because a person may be a fugitive from justice with respect to a misdemeanor warrant, it could not be concluded that the person was erroneously denied a handgun without checking the facts of his or her case.” Our review of total denials (18,570) for the 15 jurisdictions showed that 753, or 4.1 percent, were based on the other ineligible categories under Brady—fugitives from justice, unlawful drug users or addicts, individuals adjudicated mentally defective or committed, persons dishonorably discharged from the armed services, illegal aliens, and individuals who have renounced their U.S. citizenship (see tables 2.3 and III.1). These ineligible purchasers, sometimes referred to as the “other-than-felons” categories, are particularly difficult for CLEOs to identify. In 1990, for instance, a study sponsored by DOJ reported that few databases contain information on these categories of individuals. The lack of databases containing information on the other Brady ineligible categories restricts the ability of law enforcement officers to identify prospective handgun buyers who fall into one of these categories. For instance, law enforcement officers in 11 of the 15 jurisdictions told us that they rely solely on the national and/or state criminal history databases to obtain information on the other Brady ineligible categories. According to several officers, information concerning the other Brady ineligible categories is only coincidentally included in the criminal history databases. For example, Arkansas officials made a “mental defective” denial because criminal history records showed that an individual charged with battery and criminal property damage had been adjudicated “not guilty by reason of insanity.” Thus, while Brady specifies a number of other ineligible categories, most law enforcement officers have no way to check purchasers’ backgrounds with respect to these disqualifiers. In a few instances, information on these categories may be found in criminal history records. The following sections present more specifics on these disqualifying categories in the 15 jurisdictions we analyzed. Nonfelon fugitives from justice accounted for 160 (21.2 percent) of the 753 total denials in the other Brady ineligible categories (see table III.1). The 160 denials were made in 5 jurisdictions; however, the city of Houston (Texas) with 57 denials accounted for 35.6 percent of these denials (see table III.15). According to a Houston Police Department official, when background checks identify a fugitive, the information is passed on to the Department’s Fugitive Division to first verify that the warrant is still active and, if so, to serve the warrant. In the other four jurisdictions, officers told us that it is their respective agency’s policy to first confirm that the warrant is still active and, if it is, either serve it or inform the originating agency, which is then responsible for any enforcement action. Applicants classified as unlawful drug users or addicts accounted for 357 (47.4 percent) of the 753 denials in the other Brady ineligible categories (see table III.1). All 357 denials were in the Texas jurisdictions of Abilene (table III.12) and Houston (table III.15). According to law enforcement officers in these jurisdictions, the denials for unlawful drug use were based on criminal history records showing that the prospective buyers had arrests for minor drug offenses. Prospective handgun buyers classified as having been adjudicated mentally defective or committed accounted for 38 (5.0 percent) of the 753 denials in the other Brady ineligible categories (see table III.1). These 38 denials were made in 8 jurisdictions. The states of Arkansas and Nevada and the City of Houston, Texas, cumulatively denied 10 handgun purchases solely on the basis of mental problems noted in the prospective buyers’ criminal history records. Two counties (Clayton County, Georgia, and Harris County, Texas) denied a total of 10 handgun purchases on the basis of local court records. The state of Ohio and the city of Fort Worth, Texas, denied a total of 13 handgun purchases on the basis of state or county mental health records. For example, six handgun purchases were denied in Ohio on the basis of state mental hospital records checks (see table III.10, note b); and seven purchases were denied by the Fort Worth, Texas, Police Department on the basis of county mental health center records (see table III.13, note d). In the remaining jurisdiction, South Carolina, five denials were the result of relatives of the prospective handgun buyers contacting the state police and submitting physicians’ statements confirming that the prospective buyers previously had been committed to a mental institution (see table III.11, note e). Prospective handgun buyers classified as having been dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces accounted for 49 (6.5 percent) of the 753 denials in the other Brady ineligible categories (see table III.1). These 49 denials were made in 6 jurisdictions—3 states (Nevada, Ohio, and South Carolina); 1 county (Harris County, Texas); and 2 cities (Houston and Pasadena, Texas). In each of these jurisdictions, law enforcement officers told us that these denials were based on criminal history records showing arrests for being absent without leave from the military. Illegal aliens accounted for 149 (19.8 percent) of the 753 denials in the other Brady ineligible categories (see table III.1). The 149 denials were made in 6 jurisdictions—2 states (Nevada and South Carolina); 1 Texas county (Harris County); and 3 Texas cities (Abilene, Fort Worth, and Houston)—on the basis of searches of criminal history records. The Houston Police Department accounted for 112 (75.2 percent) of the 149 denials (see table III.15). Beyond denying the handgun sales to the illegal aliens, the Houston Police Department took no other follow-up enforcement or referral action. The other three Texas jurisdictions followed this same procedure. In only the two state jurisdictions did law enforcement officers tell us that they notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service when illegal aliens are identified. In the 15 jurisdictions we analyzed, we found no denials based on renounced U.S. citizenship (see table III.1). “restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child.” As discussed in chapter 1, Brady’s interim provisions require prospective handgun purchasers to certify that they are not a member of various categories prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm. The categories contained in Brady reflect but do not reference those categories found at section 922(g) as they existed before the 1994 Crime Act. Thus, according to ATF’s Associate Chief Counsel (Firearms and Explosives), even though the 1994 Crime Act amended section 922(g), Brady itself was not amended to add the court order prohibition. The official told us that ATF had provided the Department of the Treasury with a list of legislative proposals, including a proposed technical amendment to Brady. Further, the Associate Chief Counsel told us that as a practical matter, ATF has been educating law enforcement officers about the “restraining order” disqualifying category and that applicants can be denied on this basis, even though ATF Form 5300.35 (see app. I) is awaiting modification pending passage of the technical amendment. In the 15 jurisdictions we analyzed, 145 (0.8 percent) of the 18,570 handgun purchase denials were based on the 1994 Crime Act (see table 2.3 and table III.1). The 145 denials were made in 3 jurisdictions—1 denial in Clayton County, Georgia (table III.4); 142 denials in Kentucky (table III.6); and 2 denials in Nevada (table III.9). According to an official with the Kentucky State Police—representing the jurisdiction with 97.9 percent of the denials in this category—the 142 denials in Kentucky were based on domestic violence orders, which are similar to restraining orders but expire (under Kentucky law) after 1 year. Traffic offenses accounted for 1,413 (7.6 percent) of the 18,570 denials (see tables 2.3 and III.1). Of the 15 jurisdictions we analyzed, 2 (both in Texas) accounted for all of the 1,413 traffic-related denials. The Houston Police Department accounted for 908 (64.3 percent) of the denials (see table III.15); and the Fort Worth Police Department accounted for the remaining 505 denials, or 35.7 percent (see table III.13). In addition to the 1,413 denials in Houston and Fort Worth, 4 other jurisdictions denied handgun purchases to prospective handgun buyers who had outstanding misdemeanor warrants, of which an indeterminable number were for traffic offenses, according to officials from these jurisdictions. Local law enforcement officials told us that these denials were made because individuals with outstanding warrants (including warrants involving traffic offenses) were considered to be fugitives from justice. Denials based on administrative or other reasons accounted for 7,216 (38.9 percent) of the 18,570 handgun purchase denials in the 15 jurisdictions we analyzed (see table 2.3). These 7,216 denials were based on a variety of reasons, as table III.1 shows, but the large majority involved application forms sent to the wrong law enforcement agency. It is worth noting that these denials are not based on arbitrary reasons, however, because Brady authorizes only the CLEO of the place of residence of the purchaser to approve the sale. Incomplete forms are also to be denied. Of the 7,216 administrative or other denials, 7,012 (97.2 percent) were the result of gun dealers sending handgun purchase applications to the wrong law enforcement agency. Three Texas jurisdictions accounted for all the denials in this category—the city of Fort Worth had 434 denials (table III.13); Harris County had 2,608 denials (table III.14); and the city of Houston had 3,970 denials (table III.15). Our review of denial records at the Fort Worth Police Department indicated that many of the misdirected applications may have resulted from jurisdictional confusion. For example, we found that the vast majority of the Fort Worth Police Department’s 434 denials in this category involved individuals with addresses near but not within the incorporated limits of the city. Although the number of missent Brady forms might suggest something more than confusion or carelessness, our analyses did not show any clear patterns, except that the levels of missent forms remained relatively constant throughout the year. In June 1995, we shared our Fort Worth analyses with ATF headquarters and applicable field office officials who told us that ATF’s response to jurisdictional confusion is to disseminate clarifying information to licensed gun dealers. “When a person falsely completes a Brady form and a timely check determines that the person is ineligible to purchase a handgun, in the discretion of the prosecutor and police, an effort may be made to arrest and prosecute the person. This may involve inviting the person to pick up the handgun and arresting the person as s/he picks it up or even staking out the dealership at which the gun is scheduled to be picked up in the case of a dangerous fugitive. In the case where the handgun is actually transferred to a prohibited person because the criminal history data check is untimely, seeking a search and/or arrest warrant and prosecuting the individual should be considered.” “Federal prosecutors ought to pay particular attention to intelligence information known to state and local law enforcement agencies in this regard. When individuals suspected of other violent and/or drug trafficking conduct are attempting to purchase handguns and are ineligible to do so, the investigation and prosecution of such individuals ought to be regarded as a priority.” “ . . . there was no means by which . . . falsification [of handgun purchase forms] would routinely be brought to the attention of at least the U.S. Attorneys. The Brady bill, now, puts into place, with the help of the ATF working with their local police officers and law enforcement, a means by which I think we will start getting more referrals with respect to false statements on gun applications.” “tatistics maintained by the Department’s Executive Office of United States’ Attorneys reflect that, since enactment of the Brady Law, a total of 162 prosecutions have been initiated in which the making of a false statement in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of a firearm (18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(6)) was the principal charge. It is not possible to determine readily the number of these prosecutions that were initiated as the result of the falsification of statements on Brady forms, as opposed to the falsification of statements on other federal firearms acquisition forms. . . . In addition, this number does not reflect cases in which charges may have been brought under Section 922(a)(6) as part of a larger prosecution involving other, possibly more serious charges, since some of the computer systems in operation in U.S. Attorneys’ offices are able to track only the lead charge. More detailed information would require a review of the case file in each of the Section 922(a)(6) prosecutions reported by the United States Attorneys, a task that would be unduly burdensome to undertake. “Such statistics are not a meaningful measure of the effectiveness of the Brady Law. . . . he statute was not primarily intended as a prosecutive mechanism but rather as a means of keeping handguns out of the hands of convicted felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons. From an enforcement perspective, the Brady Law fully serves its purpose when it succeeds in thwarting the acquisition of a firearm by such individuals. By that standard, the success of the Brady Law is reflected by the fact that, since its enactment, approximately 41,000 applications for the purchase of handguns have been denied.” In response to our inquiries about referrals and prosecutions issues, the Acting Assistant Attorney General—who is a senior DOJ official responsible for monitoring Brady implementation—reinforced the view that the act was intended primarily to deter or prevent unauthorized individuals from obtaining handguns from federally licensed firearms dealers. DOJ has noted that because prosecutions for false statements on handgun purchase applications are inefficient and ineffective in advancing this purpose, the number of prosecutions is not a good measure of Brady’s effectiveness or usefulness. In addition, with regard to the prospect of prosecuting Brady-generated cases, the Special Counsel to the Acting Assistant Attorney General stated that no new resources were provided to U.S. Attorney Offices, which already must make resource allocation decisions to address competing demands, including the emphasis in recent years on prosecuting drug kingpins and pursuing other complex, significant cases. Similar views were expressed by ATF officials in response to our inquiries. For instance, the Special Agent in Charge of the Firearms Enforcement Branch (ATF headquarters) told us that Brady is achieving its primary purpose of preventing felons from being able to purchase handguns from gun dealers. However, most U.S. Attorneys do not view the act as being a prosecutorial tool to use frequently, irrespective of the volume of referrals and potential cases involving falsified Brady forms. In April 1995, ATF headquarters staff queried the agency’s field offices to obtain an estimate of the total number of Brady-related cases referred by ATF to U.S. Attorneys Offices. The resulting cumulative estimate was that as of February 1995, a total of 250 such cases had been referred. Of the 250 referrals, 217 had been declined for prosecution, according to a DOJ Special Counsel. The DOJ official added that as of April 1995, the other referrals were still being evaluated with respect to whether fuller investigations were merited. Later, we inquired again about the prosecutive status of the open referrals. The Special Agent in Charge of ATF’s Firearms Enforcement Branch told us that as of July 1995, at least seven persons nationally had been successfully prosecuted for making false statements on the Brady handgun purchase form. This official provided us the supporting details for these prosecutions, which are presented in table 2.5. As table 2.5 shows, four federal judicial districts account for the seven Brady-related prosecutions. None of the prosecutions involved prospective gun purchasers with previous convictions for violent offenses. However, three of the cases did involve individuals who lied on the Brady handgun purchase form about drug-related felony convictions. Table 2.5 also shows that the subsequent Brady prosecutions of these individuals resulted in prison or custody sentences of 12 to 24 months. The other four cases—related gun-trafficking cases prosecuted within the Southern District of West Virginia—involved individuals who had falsified state identification cards and the Brady handgun purchase form to portray themselves as residents of West Virginia when, in fact, they were residents of New York. In all four cases, the defendants pled guilty. Three of the four defendants were sentenced to 2 years’ probation, and the fourth was sentenced to 6 months’ home confinement and 3 years’ probation. No comprehensive, national data existed on handgun purchase applications and denials for the first year of Brady; however, limited data from ATF’s and our surveys suggested that the denial rates were around 4 percent in selected jurisdictions analyzed. In the 15 jurisdictions we analyzed, about half of the denials were to individuals with felony or misdemeanor criminal histories. Denials based on the other Brady ineligible categories accounted for only 4.1 percent of the total denials in the 15 jurisdictions. Almost 40 percent of the total denials from our survey were because the gun dealers sent the Brady forms to the wrong CLEOs. However, all of these denials occurred in only 3 of the 15 jurisdictions, and it is unknown whether any of these purchases would have been denied if the forms had been sent to the proper CLEOs. Although we were not able to quantify the number of Brady-related prosecutions, available information suggested that the number is relatively small nationally. DOJ views Brady as more of a deterrent than a prosecutive mechanism, and ATF stated that most cases referred by ATF field offices to U.S. Attorneys have been declined. In its written comments on a draft of this report, DOJ provided updated information on its efforts to develop databases for identifying nonfelony classes of ineligible purchasers—fugitives, unlawful drug users or addicts, individuals adjudicated mentally defective or committed, persons dishonorably discharged, illegal aliens, and persons who have renounced U.S. citizenship. Our work did not specifically address the status of efforts to develop these databases, which will be important components of the national instant background check system under the phase II permanent provisions (effective November 30, 1998) of Brady. DOJ also provided clarifying information regarding arrests and prosecutions for falsely completing the handgun purchase application form. DOJ’s view is that Brady’s main purpose is to prevent certain categories of persons from obtaining handguns from federally licensed gun dealers. Given this main purpose, DOJ said that our report affords too much attention to evaluating the success of Brady in generating prosecutions for falsely completing the Brady handgun purchase form, which is not a good measure of Brady’s effectiveness or usefulness. We agree with DOJ that Brady’s main purpose is to prevent ineligible persons from purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers. Most of this chapter—and all of appendix III—deal with this topic. On the other hand, one objective of our review was to determine the extent to which handgun purchase denials had resulted in federal follow-up enforcement actions. In this regard, we believe the prosecution-related information in our report is relevant, accurate, and presented in a balanced manner. Treasury and ATF provided a combined set of comments on the draft. Treasury stated that it is erroneous to treat Brady forms sent to the wrong CLEO as denials. We treated them as denials because the CLEOs in our review treated them as denials. We agree with Treasury that “simply because the notice was sent to the wrong CLEO does not mean that the purchaser did not receive the handgun.” Treasury also commented that even though certain handgun transactions are not subject to Brady’s provisions, nonetheless the law is an important first step in reducing illegal transfers to private individuals. Although there is widespread support for Brady in the law enforcement community, several legal challenges and the status of federal authority to penalize or redesignate nonperforming CLEOs have hampered enforcement of the act in some jurisdictions. Several sheriffs and a sheriff’s association have challenged the constitutionality of Brady’s interim background check provision, and most won their cases at the federal district court level. However, one of the three federal appeals courts considering the constitutionality of Brady has held that the act is constitutional. DOJ has determined that it lacks the authority to penalize or redesignate CLEOs who choose not to check backgrounds of handgun purchasers. DOJ has noted, however, that injunctive relief, for example, may be an option to compel local law enforcement officials to fulfill their responsibilities under the act. In two jurisdictions where CLEOs had not performed presale background checks, ATF’s National Tracing Center data did not show any crime-related handgun purchases from licensed dealers. Generally, the law enforcement community has strongly supported Brady. For example, a leading proponent of the act’s provisions is the International Association of Chiefs of Police. During the extended debate leading to eventual passage of Brady, the Association expressed support for a 5-day waiting period to allow law enforcement officers an opportunity to conduct background checks on all prospective handgun purchasers. Despite the generally widespread support of the law enforcement community, eight sheriffs and one sheriff’s association have initiated court cases challenging the constitutionality of Brady, particularly the phase I provision directing state or local law enforcement officers to make a reasonable effort to conduct background checks. The first eight cases are separate filings by individual sheriffs—each having jurisdictional responsibility for one county or parish in his respective state—and the ninth and most recent case was filed by the Wyoming Sheriff’s Association. As of July 1995, federal district courts had rendered decisions in six of the nine cases, and all six cases were on appeal to federal circuit courts. In five of the six decided cases, the courts have held Brady’s phase I background check provision to be unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment. The first decision in the several challenges to Brady was Printz v. United States. In that May 1994 decision, for example, the Federal District Court for Montana ruled that the phase I background check provision substantially commandeers state executive officers and indirectly commandeers the legislative processes of the states to administer an unfunded federal program. The court observed that the CLEOs are indirectly required to allocate their resources to implement Brady instead of using those resources to address problems important to their constituents. In so ruling, the court rejected the federal government’s argument that the phase I background check provision was discretionary. The only federal district court ruling to date to hold that Brady’s phase I background check provision is consistent with the Tenth Amendment involves the case filed by a county sheriff in Texas (Koog v. United States). In that case, also decided in May 1994, the Federal District Court for the Western District of Texas reasoned that Brady confers great discretion on the CLEO to determine what is a reasonable background search and that no search may be required if the circumstances dictate. The court concluded that Brady imposes only minimal duties on CLEOs. From the government’s perspective, five of the six district court decisions were adverse rulings in that the phase I background check provision was deemed unconstitutional; therefore, DOJ has appealed the decisions. Even in these decisions, however, the courts found the remainder of Brady’s provisions severable and that they, therefore, remained operative. The Vermont court, for example, noted that CLEOs could perform background checks if they voluntarily chose to do so. In September 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Brady, saying the federal government can require state and local law enforcement agencies to check the records of prospective handgun buyers. The court reasoned that Brady’s provision that law enforcement agencies “make a reasonable effort to ascertain” the legality of a handgun purchase is a minimal burden that the federal government can impose on state and local law enforcement agencies. The court accordingly reversed the judgments of the Arizona and Montana district courts, which had held Brady unconstitutional as a violation of the Tenth Amendment (see table 3.1). At the time of our review, no background checks had been conducted in two of the nine jurisdictions where the CLEOs had challenged Brady. However, indications were that background checks had been conducted in the other seven jurisdictions. The situation regarding each of these seven jurisdictions was as follows: • While district court decisions were pending in three of the cases, Brady requirements were still being implemented by the plaintiff sheriffs in the respective jurisdictions—Otero County, New Mexico; Alamance County, North Carolina; and the counties in Wyoming. • Although the sheriff of Forrest County, Mississippi, was relieved of the requirement to conduct the Brady background checks by the district court’s ruling, he said he continued to perform the background checks so that eligible purchasers do not have to wait 5 business days. • Also, as noted above, the sheriff of Val Verde County, Texas, lost his case in district court and, thus, was still conducting background checks. • State-level agencies assumed responsibility for conducting background checks in Graham County, Arizona, and Orange County, Vermont. Effective October 1, 1994, the Arizona Department of Public Safety assumed a centralized role in conducting background checks for all residents of that state. In Vermont, when the Orange County sheriff refused to conduct background checks, the Vermont Department of Public Safety voluntarily assumed this responsibility in July 1994. On the other hand, even though Brady has been in effect since February 28, 1994, indications were that no background checks on handgun purchasers have been conducted in the other two jurisdictions—Iberia Parish, Louisiana, and Ravalli County, Montana. The following sections provide more details about the situations in these two jurisdictions. In March 1995, we contacted a Group Supervisor in ATF’s New Orleans Area Office, whose geographic operating responsibilities include Iberia Parish, Louisiana. According to the ATF Group Supervisor: • After passage of Brady in November 1993, officials from the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office and the Louisiana State Police met to determine which law enforcement agency or agencies would be designated to perform background checks of prospective purchasers of handguns. The Louisiana State Police officials said their agency was not interested in serving as the CLEO for implementing Brady Act background checks. Thus, the Attorney General’s Office and the State Police officials agreed that the sheriff of each parish should serve as CLEO. • Shortly thereafter, the Iberia Parish sheriff told dealers and ATF that he would not be performing background checks because he had insufficient resources to do so. In early 1994, ATF staff visited the sheriff to discuss his decision not to perform Brady background checks, but the sheriff still insisted that he had insufficient resources and would not be performing background checks. The ATF Group Supervisor told us that ATF had no authority to designate or require another law enforcement agency to perform the background checks in Iberia Parish and that as of March 1995, no agency had volunteered to take on the added responsibility. Later that month, we spoke with the sheriff of Iberia Parish. He told us that his office had never conducted any Brady background checks and that he did not know how many, if any, Brady forms had been received by his office. In February 1995, we contacted an inspector in ATF’s Portland Area Office, whose geographic responsibilities include Ravalli County, Montana. According to the ATF inspector: • ATF’s Portland Area Office is staffed with only eight inspectors but is responsible for four states, one of which is Montana. Generally, inspectors spend most of their time on higher priority efforts and have no time for inspections related to Brady Act implementation. • Thus, ATF staff do not know whether the Ravalli County sheriff is conducting (or has ever conducted) any Brady background checks. In August 1995, we contacted the Sheriff of Ravalli County, and he told us he had never conducted Brady background checks and had no plans to do so. DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel has interpreted Brady’s criminal penalty provisions to be inapplicable to state or local law enforcement officers in performance of their duties under the act and that the government, therefore, lacks the authority to prosecute such officers for violations of the act. A majority of the district courts considering the issue have either recognized or endorsed such interpretation. Moreover, responsible ATF and DOJ officials told us that neither Treasury nor DOJ has authority to redesignate CLEOs in situations where the initially designated CLEOs fail to perform their expected duties. “The history of the Act indicates that Congress did not envision its criminal sanctions applying to CLEOs. “This reasoning is reinforced by the great solicitude paid to law enforcement officials in other provisions of the Act. It would be incongruous to insulate the CLEO against liability for damages . . . for providing erroneous information that prevents a sale and then turn around and subject him or her to criminal fine or imprisonment for failure to perform ministerial acts. Our conclusion is further supported by the impracticality, if not impossibility, of prosecuting a chief law enforcement officer for failing to make a ‘reasonable effort.’ The use of the term ‘reasonable effort’ reflects Congress’ apparent intent to vest discretion in CLEOs by providing a flexible statutory requirement. This elasticity, though common in civil statutes, is unusual in criminal laws because it does not clearly define a punishable act. It would be difficult to prosecute a CLEO for failing to make a ‘reasonable effort’, and such prosecution could be subject to a Fifth Amendment due process challenge. In light of the fact that applying criminal penalties to the ‘reasonable effort’ requirement would be both unusual and arguably unconstitutional, we find it difficult to believe that Congress intended the ‘reasonable effort’ to be criminally enforceable.” In summary, DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that 18 U.S.C. Section 924(a)(5) does not apply to state officials, and the U.S. government, therefore, lacks the authority to prosecute state or local law enforcement officials for not conducting Brady background checks. This position has been recognized and endorsed by several of the district court decisions discussed above. For example, in determining the Forrest County, Mississippi, sheriff’s standing to sue, the federal district court noted that it believed the Department of Justice “is correct in its interpretation” of Brady’s penalty provisions. DOJ has noted, however, that injunctive relief may be an option. At the time of our review, DOJ had not sought injunctive relief. Under Brady, ATF has no specific authority to designate alternate CLEOs for conducting background checks. In our follow-up inquiries at ATF and DOJ headquarters, responsible officials told us that neither Treasury nor DOJ has authority to redesignate CLEOs when the initially designated CLEOs choose not to perform background checks. Moreover, even regarding the initial designations of CLEOs for purposes of Brady, federal agencies had no statutory authority and also played no substantive role in the process, except for disseminating guidance and encouraging cooperation in implementing the new law. Rather, state and local officials were expected to determine who would be designated as CLEOs for purposes of conducting presale background checks. We tried to determine whether there have been any negative effects resulting from the absence of presale background checks of handgun purchasers residing in the two jurisdictions discussed above—Iberia Parish, Louisiana, and Ravalli County, Montana. We wanted to determine, for example, whether any gun-related crimes had been committed—with a handgun purchased on or after February 28, 1994 (the effective date of Brady)—by any resident of these jurisdictions and, if so, whether the purchaser had a criminal history or other disqualifier identifiable by a routine background check. In response to our suggestion, ATF’s National Tracing Center performed a computerized search of tracing requests received from law enforcement agencies. The search was designed to determine if any of the tracing requests involved crime scene handguns that had been purchased in either of the two jurisdictions after Brady’s effective date. In structuring the computerized search, the National Tracing Center focused on all federally licensed dealers with postal address ZIP codes applicable to the two jurisdictions. As of July 25, 1995, the Center’s search revealed that a total of seven crime-tainted handguns had been purchased from dealers within the two jurisdictions. Six of the handguns had been purchased in Iberia Parish and one in Ravalli County. However, all seven purchases were made before Brady went into effect on February 28, 1994. Thus, this search of tracing requests did not specifically identify any crime-related effects stemming from the lack of background checks in the two jurisdictions. On the other hand, since no background checks had been conducted in these two jurisdictions there is no assurance that ineligible persons did not purchase handguns from licensed dealers. Moreover, the Tracing Center’s search covered only one jurisdiction in each state. Thus, the search did not cover the possibility that residents of one county or parish may have purchased handguns in another county or parish in their state. The effects of the legal challenges to Brady are not entirely clear because the cases are being appealed. The federal district courts have ruled in five of six cases decided as of July 1995 that CLEOs cannot be required to perform background checks. However, the decisions found the remainder of Brady’s provisions severable and that they, therefore, remained operative. In September 1995, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of Brady, reversing the judgments of the Arizona and Montana district courts. The appeals court reasoned that the phase I background check provision is a minimal burden that the federal government can impose on state and local law enforcement agencies Background checks were being conducted in seven of the nine jurisdictions where CLEOs had challenged Brady. In the other two jurisdictions, no checks were being conducted. We did not determine whether this lack of background checks resulted in handgun purchases by ineligible individuals. In its written comments, DOJ said the fact that local law enforcement officials are not subject to criminal prosecution does not mean there is no way to compel them to fulfill their responsibilities under Brady. DOJ commented that injunctive relief may be an option. We have added this point to our discussion. In their combined written comments, Treasury and ATF suggested that we add language indicating that the federal district court decisions were limited to the plaintiff sheriffs only and that other CLEOs in surrounding jurisdictions were still subject to Brady’s phase I background check provision. While the McGee and Romero district court decisions were limited to the plaintiff sheriffs, the Mack, Printz, and Frank district court decisions did not contain such a limitation. For example, the Frank decision enjoined “the United States from enforcing that provision in the District of Vermont,” the Mack decision ordered “that defendant United States of America and its agents are permanently enjoined from further enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 922(s)(2),” and the Printz decision enjoined “the United States from enforcing said provision.” Also, Treasury and ATF commented that the number of jurisdictions affected by the legal challenges to Brady is very small compared to overall enforcement of the act. Further, we and the agencies pointed out that the federal appeals court decision overturned two of the five district court decisions against Brady, and the appeals were pending in the remaining three cases as of October 1995.

GAO reviewed the implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, focusing on the: (1) extent to which the waiting period and background checks required for handgun purchases have prevented ineligible persons from legally purchasing handguns; (2) extent to which denials have resulted in follow-up enforcement actions against those submitting false purchase information; and (3) effects of various legal challenges to the Brady Act. GAO found that: (1) of the law enforcement agencies surveyed, handguns were denied to about 4.3 percent of applicants; (2) application denials varied by jurisdiction because law enforcement officials did not use standardized criteria for their decisions; (3) most denials resulted from misdemeanor warrants or administrative reasons, such as gun dealers, sending applications to the wrong law enforcement agency; (4) in four jurisdictions, 4.9 percent of denials resulted from convictions or indictments for violent crimes, such as aggravated assault, murder, rape, or robbery; (5) most law enforcement officers relied solely on criminal history records in conducting their background checks because no other information sources were available, but some officers routinely checked for mental history disqualifications; (6) the number of Brady Act prosecutions was relatively small due to the low priority of follow-up enforcement actions at the Department of Justice (DOJ); (7) federal officials believe that the Brady Act is achieving its primary goal of preventing felons from legally purchasing handguns; (8) the effects of legal challenges to the Brady Act will not be known until all appeals are decided; and (9) DOJ believes that it lacks the authority to take action against law enforcement officers who do not conduct background checks.

U.S. military operations as part of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) began on October7, 2001, and continue today. The military component is just one aspect in this endeavor, which alsoinvolves diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, and financial efforts to defeat terrorists aroundthe world. This report focuses on U.S. military operations in four areas -- Afghanistan, Africa, thePhilippines, and Colombia -- although the U.S. military is likely engaged in a variety of activitiesin other countries or regions that are considered part of the GWOT by the Administration. Whilesome consider military operations in Iraq as part of this war, many do not, and because of thecomplexity of this issue, Iraq is treated separately and in greater detail in other CRS reports. (2) Congress has a wide ranging interest in U.S. military operations in these regions. NATOassumption of responsibility for Afghanistan and its impact on U.S. military operations,counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan, and the apparently emerging long-term military strategyfor Africa -- raise a variety of issues for potential congressional consideration. (3) There are approximately 19,000 U.S. military personnel in and around Afghanistan. Troopscurrently in Afghanistan represent the sixth major troop rotation in Operation Enduring Freedom(OEF) since the United States became involved in the fall of 2001. At present, the majority of U.S.ground forces come from the Army's Italy-based 173rd Airborne Brigade and the 1st Brigade of theFort Bragg, North Carolina-based 82nd Airborne Division and Marine elements from the Second (II)MEF from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. U.S. Special Forces are also operating in Afghanistanand are primarily concerned with capturing or killing Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. In addition,Army units from the Florida National Guard's 53rd Infantry Brigade have been deployed to train theAfghan National Army (ANA). (5) Drawdown of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan. InDecember 2004, the Department of Defense (DOD) designated the 3rd and 4th Brigades of the 10thMountain Division from Ft. Drum New York and Ft. Polk, Louisiana and elements of the division'sheadquarters as the primary ground forces and command headquarters for OEF 7. (6) On December 20, 2005, DODannounced that one battalion-sized infantry task force from the 4th Brigade stationed at Ft. Polkwould deploy to Afghanistan to assist in the transition of coalition operations in southernAfghanistan in mid-2006 to NATO. (7) DOD attributes this reduction to NATO's growing presence inAfghanistan as well as continued growth and progress of the Afghan National Army (ANA) andAfghan National Police. (8) DOD's decision to deploy only a portion of the 4th Brigade is expected to bring U.S. troop levels --currently at approximately 19,000 -- to approximately 16,500; a reduction of 2,500 troops. (9) Security for Parliamentary Elections. U.S. andCoalition forces, in conjunction with the Afghan National Army (ANA) and National Police,provided security for Afghanistan's September 18, 2005 nationwide National Assembly andProvincial Council elections. Reports suggest that security efforts were relatively effective, despitea number of insurgent harassing attacks prior to the election, and about 16 of 6,270 elections stationswere not opened because of security-related problems. (10) Shortly after the elections, Afghan President Hamid Karzaireportedly questioned the need for further international military operations within Afghanistan,suggesting that instead a "stronger political approach focusing on shutting down guerilla trainingcamps and outside financial support" would be more effective. (11) President Karzai alsosuggested that airstrikes were no longer needed -- a view shared by many as airstrikes have beenresponsible for the deaths and injury of numerous Afghan civilians and has been a past point ofcontention between the United States and the Afghan government. Although insurgents failed to follow through on their vows to disrupt September's elections,U.S. military officials contend that the insurgents have recently reasserted themselves -- killinghundreds of civilians, government workers, soldiers and police in bombings and ambushes insouthern and eastern Afghanistan. (12) The commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, reportedlysuggested that this pattern would continue and that U.S. and coalition forces would continue to stayon the offensive against insurgents. Operational Issues. Changing Insurgent Tactics? A number of reportsnote that in the past months, insurgent tactics have shown an increase in the use of suicide androadside bombings, not unlike the tactics being used by insurgents in Iraq. (13) There have been over 20suicide attacks in Afghanistan since September 2005 including car bomb attacks against U.S. andNATO convoys -- resulting in four NATO deaths -- as well as individuals with explosives strappedto their bodies throwing themselves at vehicles or detonating their explosives in crowds. Most ofthese bombings failed to hit their intended targets but instead killed or wounded Afghan civilians.In one of the more successful attacks, on September 28, 2005, an insurgent dressed in an ANAuniform, blew up a motorcycle near Afghan troops boarding transportation outside their base inKabul, killing 9 soldiers and injuring 28. A top Taliban commander reportedly stated that he hadmore than 200 insurgents willing to become suicide attackers against U.S. and allied forces but theAfghan government dismissed this claim as "propaganda"suggesting instead that this was anindication of the insurgent's weakening military power. While U.S. military officials postulate that insurgents no longer have a pool of resources tomount a serious offensive they also acknowledge that insurgent forces are "far from being on theropes." (14) The U.S.military asserts that the insurgents are recruiting younger fighters and staging smaller-scale attacks, often times using a hit-and-run approach as opposed to the major combat operations of the past.According to an unnamed Afghan source with supposed ties to Taliban insurgents, the Taliban havedivided up into groups of 18 to 20 fighters and in each unit there is an Al Qaeda member fromPakistan or an "Arab" who teaches the group tactics developed in Iraq. According to this source,"rogue" elements from Pakistan's Intelligence Service help to further refine these tactics as wellprovide these groups sanctuary and training in Pakistan, provided these groups return to Afghanistanto fight U.S. and allied forces. In instances where U.S. forces have engaged insurgents, they noted that insurgents were"extremely resolute and fought to the last man." Insurgents were also characterized as well-organizedand reacted well to battlefield situations. Despite this perceived proficiency, the U.S. Army claimsto have killed more than 1,200 insurgents in 2005 -- including a number of senior commanders. U.S.forces have reportedly used small U.S. formations such as platoons (16 to 50 soldiers)to draw outinsurgent forces, who will often "swarm" into larger formations to overwhelm the smaller U.S. unit.The smaller U.S. unit then engages the insurgent forces to "fix" it, while other infantry units andU.S. airpower engage and destroy it. Combat Operations Against Insurgents. U.S. andcoalition forces continue combat operations, primarily in the border provinces where the Talibancontinue to exert a degree of control. On August 31, 2005, U.S. and ANA forces, backed by attackhelicopters, raided a Taliban camp in the mountains of southern Afghanistan, killing nine suspectedinsurgents. (15) Thiscamp was believed to have sheltered 80 insurgents using it as a base camp to launch attacks inUruzgan province. (16) On September 4 and 5, U.S. and Afghan forces conducted raids in Zabol and Kandahar provinces,killing 25 suspected Taliban and capturing dozens more. (17) Pakistani Involvement. Prior to Afghanistan's September 18 parliamentaryelections, Pakistan reportedly deployed thousands of reinforcements to its borders to help preventinsurgent attacks. (18) According to Pakistani defense officials, about 5,000 additional troops were sent to the NorthwestFrontier Province and approximately 4,500 additional troops were sent to Baluchistan. (19) On September 13,Pakistan conducted an operation with thousands of troops and helicopter gunship support in NorthWaziristan, reportedly destroying a "major Al Qaeda hideout" and arresting 21 suspectedmilitants. (20) OnSeptember 29, Pakistan began a series of attacks in North Waziristan region and reportedlyencountered considerable resistance from insurgents, resulting in the deaths of at least five Pakistanisoldiers and an unknown number of insurgents. (21) Despite the significant presence of the Pakistani Army inPakistan's Tribal Zone bordering Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda are said to be rallying inthe Waziristan region. (22) According to reports, there appears to be evidence that Arab, Uzbek, and Chechen fighters linkedto Al Qaeda are operating in that area and openly recruiting local tribesman to fight in their "jihad"against the Pakistani Army and U.S. forces in Afghanistan. (23) This has supposedlyresulted in fighting between local tribesman that have aligned themselves with the Pakistani Armyand those siding with the insurgent. (24) Renewed Fighting. U.S. and Afghan forces continuedoffensive operations against insurgents after Afghan parliamentary elections and on September 23coalition ground forces, backed by helicopter gunships, killed 14 suspected Taliban fighters inUruzgan province. (25) On September 24, a U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter was shot down by insurgents in southernZabul province, killing all five crew members. (26) On October 8, a U.S. soldier patrolling in Helmand provincestepped on a land mine and became the 200th U.S. service member killed in Afghanistan since theU.S. invaded in 2001. (27) On October 11 in Helmand province, insurgents ambushed a convoy of 150 Afghan police officers,killing 19 officers. (28) U.S. Desecration of Taliban Dead. In mid-October, allegations thatU.S. soldiers had burned the bodies of two dead Taliban fighters and then used their corpses forpropaganda purposes against the insurgents emerged after the event was broadcasted on Australiantelevision. (29) According to reports, U.S. soldiers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade burned the two bodies --supposedly for hygiene reasons as none of the local inhabitants would claim the bodies and affordthem a Muslim burial -- and then U.S. Psychological Operations soldiers used the bodies to tauntinsurgent fighters believed to be in the area. Cremation is prohibited by the Muslim faith and respectfor the body of the dead is also a central tenet of the religion. This act was strongly condemned byAfghan President Karzai and raised fears that such an act would further damage the United State'simage to Muslims, given the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal as well as other allegations ofprisoner abuse in both Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. CENTCOM, which commands operations in Iraqand Afghanistan, quickly condemned the actions of the U.S. troops involved, reportedly stating that"desecration, abuse or inappropriate treatment of enemy combatants were never condoned and thatthese actions violated U.S. policy and the Geneva Convention." U.S. Army Major General JasonKamiya, the commander of Joint Task Force 76, the U.S.-led force that operates in eastern andsouthern Afghanistan, reportedly halted all tactical psychological operations the day after he wasinformed of the incident and ordered an immediate investigation. It is not known if those soldiersinvolved were punished for the incident, but extensive training was ordered to deal with what U.S.military officials described as an "emerging gap" between Afghanistan's Islamic culture and whatis permissible under the Geneva Convention. Continued Offensive Operations Against Insurgents. On October 16, U.S. forces - mainly U.S. Marines from the 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd MarineDivision, from Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii - conducted a seven day battalion-level (800 Marines)offensive operation with about 300 ANA soldiers and U.S. Army forces and U.S. air support. (30) Dubbed Operation Pil (theDari word for "elephant") this operation was aimed at disrupting enemy activities and sanctuariesin Afghanistan's Kunar province. No U.S. troops were killed during the operation and there were noestimates of the number of enemy killed. On October 29, a U.S. and British soldier were killed - theAmerican during a patrol in Khost province and the British soldier while on patrol in the city ofMazar-e Sharif. (31) OnOctober 30, two U.S. soldiers with the Alabama National Guard's 926th Engineers were reportedlycharged with assaulting two Afghan prisoners and both soldiers -- still serving in Afghanistan --could face court-martial. (32) On December 5, two U.S. CH-47 Chinook helicopters were hitby enemy fire - one in Kandahar province and one in Uruzgan province - and made emergencylandings, resulting in minor injuries to their occupants. (33) On December 6, U.S. and Afghan forces reportedly killed nineTaliban insurgents in Uruzgan province and 13 insurgents were killed in joint operations inKandahar province on December 7. (34) On December 15, one U.S. soldier was killed during a firefightin Kandahar province and another was killed on December 28 by a roadside bomb while anotherwas killed in a vehicle accident. (35) According to reports, 2005 was the deadliest year for the U.S.military in Afghanistan with 91 service members killed as of December 29, 2005 by fighting andaccidents. (36) Predator Strike in Pakistan. On January 13, 2006, anarmed CIA Predator unmanned aircraft reportedly launched an airstrike on the Pakistani village ofDamadola near the Afghan border, possibly killing four top Al Qaeda leaders but also killing 13 Pakistani villagers -- sparking angry, nation-wide protests in Pakistan. (37) The target of the raid, AlQaeda's alleged second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahri, apparently escaped or was not present atthe insurgent's meeting. Those four Al Qaeda leaders believed to have been killed in the raidincluded a supposed chemical weapons expert, a public relations and recruitment chief, and AlQaeda's operations chief responsible for planning attacks on U.S. and coalition forces on the Afghanborder. If these reports are true, some experts believe that this could be a significant blow to AlQaeda as these men were considered very experienced leaders who will be difficult to replace. Permanent Presence and Bases inAfghanistan? (38) There are indications that the United States may seek permanentmilitary bases in Afghanistan. The United States is upgrading military facilities in Afghanistan --primarily at the airbases of Bagram and Kandahar, which are currently being equipped with newrunways. At Bagram airbase, the United States hopes to have a new 11,800-foot runway built byMarch 2006, along with a hospital, and facilities to accommodate 1,000 service members. (39) At Kandahar airbase, U.S.forces are expanding and widening the damaged 7,900-foot runway for both military and civilian airtraffic. (40) Afghan leadersare said to be seeking a "long-term strategic partnership" with the United States and other friendlycountries to avoid a strategic disengagement by the international community like the West's 1990sdisengagement that helped to bring the Taliban to power. Senior U.S. military and governmentofficials have acknowledged that bases, and perhaps pre-positioned U.S. military equipment, are apossibility, but note that there are numerous regional sensitivities to such a plan. Some believe thatthe importance of these bases in Afghanistan was emphasized when Uzbekistan evicted the U.S.military from a key airbase in July 2005 -- a base that had been used to ship troops, equipment, andsupplies to forces to Afghanistan. (41) ISAF is a NATO-led organization, consisting of approximately 9,000 troops from 26 NATOnations, as well as troops from nine partner and two non-aligned countries. (42) The United States hasapproximately 200 troops assigned to ISAF, but these troops serve primarily in staff and supportroles. ISAF operates under a series of U.N. mandates and conducts security patrols in Kabul andsurrounding districts and runs several Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) located throughoutAfghanistan. In addition, ISAF coordinates Civil Military Cooperation projects throughout the areaof operations. (43) ISAFcurrently does not participate in offensive operations against the Taliban and Al Qaeda -- theseoperations are carried out by the U.S.-led Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF)-180 and forces from19 other countries (44) (including some countries that have other forces assigned to ISAF) and the ANA. Current Situation. The Italian Rapid DeploymentCorps will command ISAF until May 2006 and then relinquish command to the British-ledmulti-national Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC), which will command ISAFfor nine months. (45) InFebruary 2005, NATO agreed to expand ISAF coverage into southern Afghanistan, providingsecurity assistance to an estimated 50 percent of Afghanistan. (46) On September 28, theGerman Parliament voted in favor of extending Germany's mandate in Afghanistan until October2006 and will expand its forces assigned to ISAF from 2,250 to 3,000 troops. (47) France reportedlyannounced on December 18 that it would send an additional 450 troops by mid-2006 to support the600 French troops that are currently part of ISAF. (48) France also has about 200 special forces troops deployed insouthern Afghanistan. (49) Despite these commitments of additional troops, there continues to be a great deal of concernamongst certain U.S. allies about ISAF working more closely with the U.S. counterterrorism effortin Afghanistan. France, Germany, and Spain do not want ISAF leadership to also take overleadership of counterterror operations - a position supported by the United States and GreatBritain. (50) Reportedly,discussions were underway to find a way whereby France and Germany would permit NATO tocommand both ISAF and counterterror operations but not participate directly in theseoperations. (51) On November 14, Taliban insurgents killed a German ISAF member and wounded two othersin a suicide car attack in Kabul. (52) This attack, along with other recent incidents, have raisedsecurity concerns amongst NATO nations. The Netherlands, one of a reported thirteen nations thatwill lead NATO's expansion in 2006, has raised questions publically about the sufficiency of plannedNATO forces to handle serious trouble. (53) The Dutch plan to deploy about 1,000 to 1,400 troops tosouthern Afghanistan, and Britain and Canada are also expected to send additional forces to theregion; non-NATO members New Zealand and Australia might also provide forces for theexpansion. (54) OnJanuary 10, 2006, the Australian Defense Minister reportedly announced that Australia would sendan additional 110 special forces soldiers and two helicopters in support of 190 Australian troopsalready in Afghanistan. (55) By adding an additional 6,000 troops to the 9,000 already a partof ISAF, the United States may be able to decrease the number of forces it has in Afghanistan. In February 2005, NATO and the United States agreed to merge ISAF and the U.S.-ledOperation Enduring Freedom (OEF) under NATO command. (56) This merger is expectedto occur in mid to late 2006 and essentially involves NATO expansion into southern Afghanistanand other volatile regions of the country such as the Pakistani border region. Command arrangementsfor this merger and peacekeeping versus counterterror roles quickly became points of contention formany NATO countries who felt that placing both missions under a single NATO commander wouldbe counterproductive and that having NATO troops keeping the peace and at the same timeconducting combat operations against insurgents would result in widespread Afghan resentment andoverall mission failure. On November 14, NATO agreed to a plan where there would be a singlechain of command for all operations under an ISAF commander, but a deputy commander would bemade responsible for counterinsurgency operations. (57) Under this plan, NATO agreed that British, Dutch, andCanadian troops would spearhead NATO's move into southern Afghanistan while Germany wouldtake over the north, and Italy and Spain would retain responsibility for western Afghanistan. (58) Dutch Concerns Over Deploying to SouthernAfghanistan. The Netherlands currently has approximately 625 troops currentlyserving in Afghanistan and under NATO's expansion plan, are due to provide an additional 1,000to 1,400 troops to serve in Urzuzgan province in the south. (59) The Dutch government,based on a Dutch intelligence service report, are concerned that their forces may be operating in aparticularly dangerous area and have sought assurances that additional military support would beavailable in the event of significant levels of violence in the region. (60) The Dutch government hasgiven Parliament - who are reportedly deeply divided over the issue -- the authority to approve orreject the deployment and a vote on the issue is scheduled for February 2. (61) This situation is causingdifficulty amongst other NATO members, the majority of whom suggest that they would be"hard-pressed" to make up for the Dutch shortfall should the Dutch Parliament vote "No" to sendingforces to the southern region. (62) In this event, the United States, already operating in the region,might be required to make up for the shortfall of forces, possibly affecting recently announced plansto decrease force levels by 2,500 troops. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, a formerDutch defense minister, is reportedly putting pressure on the Dutch government to honor its troopcommitment and former U.S. Ambassador to the Netherlands, Paul Bremer, reportedly suggestedthat the U.S. Congress might act against Dutch economic interests if Dutch troops are not deployedas planned. (63) While NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, stated that "NATO is committed forthe long term" in Afghanistan (64) some believe that a substantial U.S. military presence will berequired throughout the duration of the NATO-led mission to insure long-term NATO commitment.There are no treaty requirements for NATO members to contribute troops to Afghanistan and NATOhas had difficulties in the past trying to muster sufficient troops and military resources for operationsusing this "pass the hat" approach. Some question how effective NATO will be in its new role, particularly when many of its members are unwilling to place their troops in potentially hostilesituations and only a few member nations are willing to commit their forces to counterterror andcounterinsurgency operations. If only a few NATO's 26 members are willing to engage incounterterror and counterinsurgency operations, then NATO's ability to sustain these operations overan extended period -- against an insurgency that has shown a great deal of resiliency and has shownno signs relenting their attacks against coalition forces -- could be called into question. PRTs are small, civil-military teams originally designed to extend the authority of the Afghancentral government beyond Kabul and to facilitate aid and reconstruction projects. PRTs haveenabled coalition forces to extend a degree of security to outlying regions and have also permittedU.S. forces to establish personal relationships with local Afghan leaders which some believe hashelped to diminish insurgent influence in a number of regions. (65) As of July 2005, therewere 22 PRTs -- 13 supervised by the Coalition and nine by NATO. (66) The 13 PRTs run by theCoalition are located in the south and east -- generally considered to be moderate to high threat areas. Twelve of the PRTs are U.S. and one is run by New Zealand. The nine PRTs administered by NATOare located in the north and west in low to moderate threat areas and cover approximately 50 percentof Afghanistan. Efficacy of PRTs. While overall, the PRTs havebeen described as successful in accomplishing their main missions and have played an importantsupporting role in other endeavors such as training, counter narcotics, and election support, someNATO PRTs have been described as "risk averse" and overly controlled by their nation'spolitical-military leadership. If all PRTs eventually transition to NATO control, some question ifthey can perform as well as PRTs run by the United States and the United Kingdom. One senior U.S. defense official, acknowledging the record of success of PRTs, suggests thatPRTs operate in a "muddled" fashion which has prevented them from having a much greater effecton Afghanistan's future. (67) He attributes this lack of efficacy to four basic factors:inconsistent mission statements; unclear roles and responsibilities; ad hoc preparation; and -- mostimportantly -- limited resources both human, equipment and financial. (68) In order for PRTs toachieve their full potential the Defense official suggests the following improvements: Either create more PRTs or extend the operational reach of the current 22 PRTswith mini-PRTs into key districts throughout Afghanistan; Each PRT should be equipped the best communications possible, additionaltransportation assets, and receive substantially more funding for a diverse array ofprojects; PRTs need a broad range of development and civilian governance expertiseand civilians with the PRTs must have both the authority and resources to play a leadershiprole; The civil-military coordination on PRTs must improvesignificantly; PRTs need to improve their ability to measure the effectiveness of theiractivities. PRTs must determine what activities have the greatest impact on the locals by employinga more rigorous cause and effect analysis; and PRTs should place greater emphasis on capacity-building programs thatimprove local governance and help to link local officials and institutions to the Afghan centralgovernment. (69) Training of the ANA commenced shortly after U.S. and coalition forces defeated Talibanforces in early 2002. The Bonn II Conference on rebuilding Afghanistan in December 2002mandated a 70,000 strong Afghan National Army. (70) Although the Afghan National Army initially experienceddifficulties in terms of morale and desertion at its inception, most analysts agree that the multi-ethnicANA has developed into a credible fighting force and eight of the ANA's most experiencedbattalions have been deployed to bases in the provinces where they routinely work with U.S. andNATO forces. (71) WhileANA soldiers are described as "fearless fighters who learn very quickly," there have been somedifficulties to overcome. (72) U.S. military officials assert that Afghanistan's lack of aprofessional army for the past 13, years, a 20 percent literacy rate amongst recruits, no barracks ormodern equipment, plus an inadequate logistics system have hampered the growth of the ANA. (73) In February 2005, the U.S. military doubled the number of tactical trainers that are embeddedwith ANA units from 300 to 600 soldiers. (74) The majority of these U.S. trainers come from the U.S. ArmyNational Guard and about 16 of these trainers are assigned to each new ANA battalion and assist thebattalion as it undergoes its 14-week basic training course and then remain with the battalion, serving as leadership mentors when the battalion deploys for operations. (75) As of December 20, 2005,the Afghan Army reportedly consisted of almost 27,000 officers and soldiers supported by about55,000 members of the Afghan National Police. (76) While the U.S. military trains the soldiers for the ANA, Francealso assists in training senior officers; Britain trains the non-commissioned officers; and othercountries such as Romania and Mongolia train the ANA on its Soviet-era equipment such as artilleryand tanks. (77) OnOctober 9, Russia reportedly announced that it will supply the ANA with $30 million worth ofequipment - including four helicopters, dozens of vehicles, and communications equipment. (78) In March 2005, U.S.officials began training six ANA battalions simultaneously -- up from 4 battalions per trainingrotation, and they hope that the ANA will reach its mandated strength of 70,000 by the end of 2006-- a full year earlier than previously planned. (79) In addition to infantry units, the ANA has fielded two combatsupport battalions with a 122 mm towed D-30 artillery battery and 82 mm mortars. (80) The ANA has also fieldeda tank battalion, equipped primarily with T-62, T-55, and T-54 Soviet-era tanks, and is to eventuallyalso field a mechanized infantry battalion equipped with U.S.-made M-113 armored personnelcarriers. (81) The Afghan government reportedly seeks to equip its military with high-tech weaponry and develop specialized units. Afghan officials would like to acquire U.S. Apache helicopters, A-10ground attack aircraft, as well as transport aircraft and armored vehicles. (82) According to U.S. militaryofficials, the United States and Afghanistan are discussing the possibility of providing the Afghanmilitary with transport aircraft and helicopters. (83) The Afghans would also like for the United States to assist increating and training commando, engineer, and intelligence units for the ANA. (84) Afghanistan's opium industry is estimated to employ directly or indirectly anywhere between20 to 30 percent of the Afghan population and provides for almost 60 percent of Afghanistan's grossdomestic product (GDP). (86) The cultivation of poppies -- used in making opium for heroin-- which was regulated and taxed under Taliban rule, flourished after the elimination of the Talibanregime. (87) Accordingto a United Nations (U.N.) report, Afghanistan's poppy harvest rose by 64 percent in 2004 -- makingAfghanistan the world's leading source for opium and heroin. (88) In August 2005, the U.N.reported that opium production had decreased by 21 percent from its 2004 level but, even with thisdecrease, Afghanistan still ranks as the world's largest opium supplier, accounting for 87 percent ofthe world's supply, according to the U.N. (89) There is reportedly evidence that the Taliban are orderingincreased poppy production from Afghan farmers in remote regions beyond the government's controlas a means to make money to finance their operations and also to weaken the Afghan centralgovernment. (90) NATO'sSupreme Commander, U.S. Marine General James L. Jones, has reportedly stated that drugs are agreater threat to Afghan security than a resurgent Taliban. (91) In 2005, DOD increased its counternarcotics role in Afghanistan. The U.S. military inAfghanistan supported efforts by Afghan and U.S. agencies such as the Drug Enforcement Agency(DEA) by providing helicopter and cargo aircraft transport and planning and intelligenceassistance. (92) The U.S.Army has reportedly provided training to DEA agents deploying to Afghanistan on weapons, nightvision devices, and how to spot landmines. Britain is in command of the Coalition's military counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan. Reports suggest that Britain will step up military efforts next year when the ARRC takes overcommand of ISAF and Britain deploys additional forces to Afghanistan. (93) British troops willsupposedly deploy to southern provinces as well as Helmand province in the southwest -- aninsurgent stronghold as well as the center of the country's opium trade. As part of thiscounternarcotics emphasis, Britain is reportedly establishing a joint intelligence fusion center withthe United States to focus on drug-related intelligence and British military officials are trying to gaina better understanding of the "Afghan narco-economy and its links to terrorism." (94) Largely facilitated byCongress, Colombia -- which has resumed diplomatic relations with Afghanistan -- is preparing toassist Afghanistan by providing its counternarcotics expertise to Afghan police and militaryforces. (95) Raids byAfghan police and Coalition forces have enjoyed mixed success, with large amounts of narcoticsbeing seized but often times drug producers and traffickers have eluded capture -- sometimes fleeingacross the border to Pakistan. (96) The U.S. military has only played a supporting role in counternarcotics operations inAfghanistan, despite recognition by some U.S. military officials that drugs are currentlyAfghanistan's primary security problem. With Britain supposedly taking a more active role incounterdrug operations and a decrease of U.S. military presence in southern Afghanistan, some assertthat the United States has all but ceded its counternarcotics responsibilities to NATO and the Afghancentral government. (97) NATO's Supreme Commander has reportedly stated that NATO does not have sufficient funds toaddress Afghanistan's drug trafficking and the Afghan government has been reportedly less thansatisfied with the international community's efforts, particularly in providing alternatives for farmerswho grow poppies. (98) Some suggest that a more aggressive policy towards the Afghan opium problem might be moreeffective in limiting insurgent activities by taking away a significant means of their financial support. The United States is deeply concerned about the potential for Africa to become a breedingground for terrorists -- citing its vast ungoverned spaces and unprotected borders. Somalia has beenreferred to as a "lawless haven for terrorists," (100) and reports suggest that Al Qaeda has opened recruiting basesin Nigeria, Somalia, Tanzania, and Uganda. (101) One report suggests that there is evidence of 17 trainingcenters in Kenya, possibly set up by groups related to Al Qaeda. (102) Others, however,disagree and contend that the region is not the terrorist zone that some U.S. officials assert. (103) These critics suggestthat there are some groups with ties to Al Qaeda in the region but no actual Al Qaeda groups or evenfranchise groups and that U.S. military and financial support to some of the region's military forcescould actually "fuel radicalism where it scarcely exists." (104) The U.S. European Command (U.S. EUCOM), which oversees military operations in mostof Africa, has reported that nearly 400 foreign fighters captured in Iraq have come from Africa andthat some of these veterans of Iraq are returning to places like Morocco and Algeria where theiracquired skills, such as operational planning and bomb making, could be used against theirrespective governments. (105) While terrorism is cited as the primary reason for U.S. militaryoperations in Africa, access to Africa's oil -- which presently accounts for 15 percent of the U.S. oilsupply and could reach 25 percent by 2015 -- is also considered a primary factor for growing U.S.military involvement in the region. (106) In October 2002, the United States established Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF) Horn ofAfrica (HOA) to combat terrorism in the region. For the purpose of this operation, the Horn ofAfrica is defined as "the total airspace and land areas out to the high-water mark of Kenya, Somalia,Ethiopia, Sudan, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Yemen." (107) CJTF-HOA is headquartered at Camp Lemonier in Djiboutiand consists of approximately 1,400 personnel including U.S. military and Special Operations Forces(SOF), U.S. civilian, and coalition force members. (108) In addition to CJTF-HOA, Combined Task Force (CTF)150is a naval task force consisting of ships from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Pakistan,New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States, and has the task of monitoring,inspecting, boarding, and stopping suspect shipping not only in the Horn of Africa region, but alsoin support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. (109) Originally, the reported mission of CJTF-HOA was to conductraids on Al Qaeda targets in the region - particularly Somalia - but due to a lack of targets, themission has instead evolved into gathering intelligence, military training for some of the region'smilitary forces, and building infrastructure and goodwill to create an environment hostile to terroristorganizations. (110) A New Regional Command? DOD isreportedly considering putting Africa -- currently the responsibility of both U.S. European Commandand U.S. Central Command -- under a single, unified command. (111) U.S. EUCOM, basedin Stuttgart, Germany, is responsible for more than 90 countries, with 42 of these countries in Africa,while U.S. CENTCOM - primarily responsible for Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and other Persian Gulfcountries -- is responsible for Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya, and Djibouti. U.S.CENTCOM, which is focused on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, supposedly has little in terms ofmanpower and resources to devote to Africa and officials suggest that while such a proposal has beendiscussed for many years, that "the time has arrived to do something." One suggestion would involveexpanding the area that CJTF- HOA is responsible for, taking advantage of the command structurepresently in Djibouti. Some say this suggestion has merit as one official noted that "competingresources leave little room for new staffs and command elements." While CJTF-HOA might formthe basis for a new regional "U.S. Africa Command," analysts suggest that, at present, the commandis under-resourced and low on DOD's priority list -- noting that the command has only three CH-53transport helicopters and one C-130 transport at its disposal and the troops that are assigned toCJTF-HOA arrive on very short 4 to 6 month rotations. (112) While CJTF- HOA and Camp Lemonier may provide a basisfor such a command, most agree that additional personnel augmentation and resources would berequired. CJTF-HOA Change of Command. In 2006 theU.S. Navy will take over command of CJTF-HOA and assume responsibility for its mission fromthe U.S. Marines Corps, in part to free up Marine forces currently stretched by operations inAfghanistan and Iraq, (113) and the creation of a 2,500 Marine Special OperationsCommand. In addition, the United States has reportedly expressed an interest in expanding activitiesinto Uganda, Tanzania, and possibly Eritrea as well as bringing in troops from foreign nations intoCJTF-HOA, which has 15 officers from various nations serving on its staff but no foreign troopsunder its command. DOD is also reportedly looking for alternative sites for CJTF-HOAheadquarters, as Djibouti has reportedly doubled its yearly rent for the facilities at Camp Lemonierto $ 30 million U.S. dollars. Candidates for new headquarters locations include Ethiopia, Kenya, andUganda but each location has its own political sensitivities. U.S. officials note that CJTF-HOA couldbe headquartered on a U.S. Navy command ship at sea, such as the USS Mount Whitney, as it waswhen CJTF-HOA was first formed in 2002. The government of the Philippines, a long-time major non-NATO ally of the United States,faces an insurgency threat from four primary groups -- three Islamic groups who seek anindependent state in Mindanao and one Communist group which seeks a Marxist state. (115) One group inparticular, the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG), has reported financial and training links to Al Qaeda andhas become the focus of the Administration's counterterror efforts in the region. (116) Estimates vary on thesize of Abu Sayyaf -- ranging from one thousand to a couple of hundred fighters -- and theiractivities were largely aimed at the Philippine government until 2001 when allegations emerged thatAbu Sayyaf had been involved in planning the assassination of the Pope during a planned visit to thePhilippines and also had plans to hijack and destroy 12 U.S. airliners. (117) Philippine authoritiesreportedly suspect that Abu Sayyaf had a role in the October 2002 bombing near a Philippinemilitary base, which killed three Filipinos and one U.S. Army Special Forces soldier. (118) Another group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), with an estimated 10,000 fighters,is presently involved in negotiations with the Philippine government, but there is reported evidencethat the MILF provides training facilities to the Al Qaeda affiliate Jemaah Islamiyah -- an Islamicgroup based largely in Indonesia. (119) U.S. military operations in the Philippines are limited by the Philippine constitution (foreignmilitary forces are not permitted to participate in combat operations on Filipino territory) toconducting training in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism tactics, advising Filipino units, andparticipating in civil-military operations. The focus of civil-military operations is to limit theinfluence of insurgents with the local population, particularly in the southern region where most AbuSayyaf and other Islamic insurgent group activity is focused. The United States has been conducting large joint training exercises with the Philippinessince 1981 called the Balikatan exercises (120) as well as a variety of other training exercises. On October 22,2005 the U.S. Navy's Forward Deployed Amphibious Readiness Group and the 31st MarineExpeditionary Unit (MEU) arrived in the Philippines to begin Amphibious Landing Exercise(PHIBLEX) 06. (121) In addition to amphibious operations, U.S. and Filipino military personnel also planned to conductcommunity service projects at a number of Filipino elementary schools and medical civil actionprograms during the exercise. On January 16, about 30 U.S. Army special forces soldiers from theFt. Lewis, Washington-based 1st Special Forces Group and about 250 Filipino soldiers began smallunit tactics, marksmanship, and combat lifesaver training about 560 miles southeast of Manila in anarea known to be frequented by Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah. (122) The U.S. specialforces units also planned to conduct medical missions in the local communities in an effort to winover the local Muslim populations. (123) The United States has frequently conducted lower-leveltraining exercises with specialized Filipino counterterrorism and counterinsurgency forces. (124) This training, typicallyinvolving no more than 100 U.S. Special Forces troops at one time, focuses on the training ofindividuals and small units on planning, tactics, and techniques and also on specializedcounterterrorism equipment provided to the Philippine Armed Forces. Reportedly, the United Stateshas also begun counter-drug training with the Philippines, which is considered a major drugtranshipment center and a major regional producer of marijuana. (125) The Balikatan exercise for 2006 is scheduled to start on Febraury 20 and run for two weeks,involving more than 5,000 U.S. military personnel. (126) In addition to ground, air, and naval exercises, U.S. andFilipino forces plan to conduct humanitarian, medical, and engineering operations on Jolo island-- an area where Islamic insurgents are particularly active. (127) Some suggest that U.S. involvement in the Philippines is part of a greater U.S. strategy tocombat Islamic terrorism throughout Southeast Asia. (128) Some U.S. officials reportedly believe that Abu Sayyaf andthe Moro Islamic Liberation Front have established connections with Jemaah Islamiyah, an Al Qaedaaffiliate operating across Indonesia and the Philippines, who are believed to be responsible for astring of bombings including Bali in 2002 and the Davao bombings in 2003. (129) A May 2005 reportsuggests that Abu Sayyaf has developed a "training relationship and operational alliance" withJemaah Islamiyah that could lead to new capabilities for Abu Sayyaf. (130) While some note therelative success of joint U.S.-Filipino training exercises in combating Abu Sayyaf, others warn thatincreasing U.S. involvement could "complicate" the Philippine's insurgency dilemma and alsopossibly fuel anti-American sentiment in the region, which could form the basis "of a newpan-Islamic solidarity in the region." (131) Some experts contend that not all militant Muslim groupsoperating in Southeast Asia are aligned with Al Qaeda, and it is important that U.S. counterterrorefforts in the region "do not motivate these potential affiliates to join the Al Qaeda cause." (132) Colombia occupies a unique position in the Administration's global war on terror in that itstargeted terrorist groups are Marxist as opposed to Islamic-based and have no reported links to AlQaeda or other Islamic groups. U.S. military involvement began in 2000 under "Plan Colombia" andwas limited to training Colombian counternarcotics units, although U.S. forces now train theColombian military in counterinsurgency operations. Colombia has been involved for almost fortyyears in what some describe as a civil war and others describe as a counterinsurgency campaignagainst three major groups. The first two groups, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN) started in the 1950s as Marxist revolutionarygroups but reportedly have lost most of their ideological support and have transformed into violentcriminal organizations. (134) The other group, the rightist United Self-Defense Forces ofColombia (AUC) is a conglomerate of illegal self-defense groups formed in rural areas where theColombian government did not exert a strong presence. (135) All three groups allegedly fund their activities through drugrevenues (136) and areon the Administration's official list of terrorist organizations. (137) These groups alsocurrently hold a number of Colombian and foreign hostages whom they use as negotiating leverage-- including three U.S. defense contractors who were taken by the FARC in February 2003 whentheir plane was shot down. (138) On December 12, 2005, the Colombian government said thatit would withdraw its forces from a contested area if the FARC would agree to talks intended toexchanged jailed rebels for 59 hostages being held by the FARC -- including the three U.S. defensecontractors. (139) The majority of U.S. military personnel in Colombia are from the U.S. Army's 7th SpecialForces Group stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. About 200 special forces soldiers are currentlyserving as trainers, where they are limited to training in garrison and planning support atheadquarters, and another 200 troops provide "information support" providing intelligence,leadership, and planning support. (140) U.S. forces reportedly do not accompany or serve as advisorsto Colombian units conducting combat operations. (141) While some have criticized the military contribution made byU.S. trainers as "small," U.S. forces in Colombia claim that the training that they have provided tothe Colombian military has resulted in killing or capturing more than 600 insurgents, the confiscationof huge amounts of arms and ammunition, and the destruction of numerous drug labs. (142) On December13, 2005,a U.S. Navy SH-60B Seahawk helicopter crashed shortly after taking off from the frigate USSDeWert, killing its three-person crew. (143) The USS DeWert was reportedly involved in counterdrugoperations at the time of the helicopter's crash. (144) On December 12, after extensive negotiations, 1,923 members of the United Self DefenseForces of Colombia (AUC) demobilized, also surrendering a large arsenal of weapons andequipment, including two helicopters. (145) Reportedly, the demobilized fighters will receive a $168 permonth stipend from the Colombian government, as well as housing, healthcare, schooling, and newidentities to reintegrate them back into Colombian society. (146) Approximately 8,000AUC paramilitaries remain to be demobilized. (147) On December 16, the National Liberation Army (ELN) andthe Colombian government announced that talks had been convened in Havana, Cuba to begin aformal peace process. (148) The ELN is believed to have about 4,000 members and peacetalks held in 2003 failed, reportedly due to an inability to agree to a framework for negotiations. (149) The FARC, after having spent the last two years on the defensive as a result of the Colombiangovernment's "Plan Patriota" to recapture FARC-held territory, have launched an aggressivecountry-wide campaign against the Colombian government, likely aimed to influence Colombia's2006 presidential elections. (150) According to reports, the FARC has restructured from a larger"front" (about 100 or so guerillas) to companies of 54 and squads of 12 to avoid casualties inflictedby Colombian air force bombings directed by U.S. intelligence sources. The FARC has alsoincreased the use of improvised explosive devices, landmines, and snipers, particularly in areaswhere force ratios do not favor FARC offensive actions against government forces. Since February2005, more than 100 members of the Colombian military have been reported killed by the FARC and732 soldiers have been reported killed since January 2004 -- with more than a third of them killedby land mines and explosive devices. On December 27, 2005 the FARC reportedly killed 24Colombian soldiers who were protecting coca-eradication workers near the Town of Vista Hermosain southern Colombia. (151) This attack was preceded 10 days earlier by an attack thatkilled eight Colombian police officers and some suggest that these attacks will continue during therun up to Colombia's presidential primary in March 2006 and continue through the national electionin May. (152) Congress may opt to examine a number of issues concerning NATO's assumption ofcommand of ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom in 2006. Some possible issues include: Is there a formal transition plan for the transfer of command toNATO?; What will be the U.S. military role in the NATO commandstructure?; How much say will NATO have in security and stability operations andoffensive operations designed to destroy the Taliban/Al Qaeda insurgency? Will NATO be able to"overrule" the United States or change existing policies? Will NATO assumption of command leadto a less vigorous pursuit of insurgents?; What are NATO's long-term plans to provide adequate forces for security andstability and offensive operations? Has NATO secured commitments from NATO members fortroops and military resources for at least the next ten years or will NATO continue to "pass the hat"to obtain forces needed for Afghanistan?; Does NATO have a comprehensive and effective counternarcotics plan forAfghanistan?; and Does NATO have a long-term strategy to transition all security and offensivemilitary operations to the Afghan government and its armed forces andpolice? Congress might act to review current Administration and DOD policy concerning the U.S.military role in Afghan counternarcotics operations. While the insurgency remains a threat, theperformance of the ANA and the progress made toward governance, suggest that the Afghan nationalgovernment and Coalition are successfully meeting these challenges. Some suggest that, despite theprogress made to date, Afghanistan's burgeoning drug trade has the potential to undermine theAfghan government and provide the Taliban with the financial resources needed to perpetuate theinsurgency indefinitely. The current U.S. military role in counternarcotics operations is limited to training, planningsupport, and the transport of police and troops. The rationale provided in the past for limited U.S.military involvement in Afghan counterdrug operations was that active involvement "was notachievable given U.S. force levels in Afghanistan" and that it could "significantly undermine itscounterinsurgency campaign." (153) While the United States has gone from a "no participation"policy to a supporting role, critics suggest that a more active role is now essential. Some suggest thatU.S. strategy in this regard is contradictory -- senior U.S. military leadership describes the Afghandrug trade as the most significant security problem facing Afghanistan yet it appears that somebelieve that the U.S. is ceding its responsibilities in counternarcotics operations at a time that suchefforts should be intensified. It is possible that Congress may explore in greater detail how Africa not only fits into theAdministration's long term strategy for the war on terror but also what the Administration's specificstrategy is for Africa, if such a strategy exists. While Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa(CJTF-HOA) has been in existence for almost three years, little is publicly known about theselong-term commitments to the region in terms of overall strategy and what resources -- both militaryand financial -- would be required to implement such a strategy, particularly if the Administrationintends to expand operations to other African nations. Congress may also choose to review with DOD, the prospects for establishing a separateregional command for Africa. While there appears to be a number of arguments favoring such acourse of action, there are also political and resource issues that might be examined in great detail.Security for such a headquarters, if it is placed in Africa, could also be a significant issue fordiscussion, given the volatile nature of the region. Removing Africa from U.S. CENTCOM's andU.S. EUCOM's responsibility could also have political and resource implications. Reports that Abu Sayaaf and Jemaah Islamiyah are developing a training relationship andoperational alliance suggest to some the potential for an increase in terrorist activities throughoutSoutheast Asia. While the majority of these activities would likely be against regional governments,the potential exists for attacks against U.S. concerns and citizens in the region. U.S. military presenceand ongoing operations in the region are considered by some as modest at best and might do littleto deter attacks or assist U.S. regional allies in pursuing those responsible. Given this possibility,Congress might act to review the adequacy of U.S. military forces in the region as well as theircurrent mandate in terms of training and advising regional military forces. Congress may decide to examine the progress being made against the FARC by theU.S.-trained Colombian military. While reports of demobilization and peace talks by the otherinsurgent groups are considered promising by some, others note that the FARC continues itscampaign against the Colombian government, adopting some of the tactics employed successfullyby insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some reports also suggest that while Colombian militaryoperations against the FARC have enjoyed a degree of success, that joint U.S.-Colombiancounternarcotics operations have done little to stem the supply of cocaine. (154) Critics note that profitsfrom drug operations finance the FARC and suggest that drastically reducing narcotics-related profitswould have a significant impact on the FARC's ability to sustain operations against the Colombianmilitary.

U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Africa, the Philippines, and Colombia are part of theU.S.-initiated Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). These operations cover a wide variety of combatand non-combat missions ranging from combating insurgents, to civil affairs and reconstructionoperations, to training military forces of other nations in counternarcotics, counterterrorism, andcounterinsurgency tactics. Numbers of U.S. forces involved in these operations range from 19,000to just a few hundred. Some have argued that U.S. military operations in these countries areachieving a degree of success and suggest that they may offer some lessons that might be applied inIraq as well as for future GWOT operations. Potential issues for the second session of the 109thCongress include NATO assumption of responsibility for operations in Afghanistan, counterdrugoperations in Afghanistan, a long-term strategy for Africa, and developments in Colombia and thePhilippines. This report will not discuss the provision of equipment and weapons to countries wherethe U.S. military is conducting counterterrorism operations (1) nor will it address Foreign Military Sales (FMS), which are alsoaspects of the Administration's GWOT military strategy. This report will be updated on a periodicbasis.

Job Corps was established as a national employment and training program in 1964 to provide severely disadvantaged youth with a wide range of services, including basic/remedial education, vocational training, and social skills instruction, usually at residential facilities. It remains one of the few federally run programs, unlike many other employment training programs that are federally funded but are operated by state or local governments. Job Corps centers are operated by public or private organizations under contract with Labor. Recent legislative proposals to consolidate much of the nation’s job training system into block grants to the states has produced debate on the relationship between Job Corps and the states, including whether responsibility for Job Corps should be delegated to the states. A 1995 Senate-passed bill retained Job Corps as a separate federally administered program; a 1995 House-passed bill was silent about the Job Corps’ future as a separate entity. A conference committee is currently attempting to resolve the differences between the two bills. The Senate bill proposes several changes to better integrate Job Corps with state and local workforce development initiatives, including requiring center operators to submit operating plans to Labor, through their state governors; requiring center operators to give nearby communities advance notice of any center changes that could affect them; and permitting the governor to recommend individuals to serve on panels to select center operators. Labor officials stated that the program is already playing a proactive role in ensuring that the National Job Corps program works more closely with state and local employment, education, and training programs. According to Job Corps officials, the program has received funding to open nine additional centers—five in program year 1996 and four in program year 1997—all of which will be located in states with existing centers. Job Corps’ nine regional directors are responsible for the day-to-day administration of the program at the centers located within their geographic boundaries. Included among their responsibilities are the recruitment of youth for program participation and the assignment of enrollees to one of the program centers. Recruitment is typically carried out by private contractors, the centers, or state employment services under contract with the regional directors. The Job Corps legislation provides some broad guidance with respect to assigning enrollees to centers. It states that participants are to be assigned to the center closest to their residence, except for good cause. Exceptions can include avoiding undue delay in assigning participants to a center, meeting educational or training needs, or ensuring efficiency and economy in the operation of the program. The program currently enrolls participants aged 16 to 24 who are severely disadvantaged, in need of additional education or training, and living in a disruptive environment. Our June 1995 report contained an analysis of characteristics of those terminating from Job Corps in program year 1993 showing that over two-thirds of the program’s participants faced multiple barriers to employment. Enrollments are voluntary, and training programs are open entry, open exit, and self-paced, allowing participants to enroll throughout the year and to progress at their own pace. On average, participants spend about 8 months in the program but can stay up to 2 years. In addition to basic education and vocational training courses, each of the centers provides participants with a range of services including counseling, health care (including dental), room and board, and recreational activities. Skills training is offered in a variety of vocational areas, including business occupations, automotive repair, construction trades, and health occupations. These courses are taught by center staff, private contractors, or instructors provided under contracts with national labor and business organizations. In addition, Job Corps offers, at a limited number of centers, advanced training in various occupations including food service, clerical, and construction trades. This training is designed to provide additional instruction to participants from centers across the nation who have demonstrated the ability to perform at a higher skill level. One feature that makes Job Corps different from other youth training programs is its residential component. About 90 percent of the participants enrolled each year live at the centers, allowing services to be provided 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The premise for boarding participants is that most come from a disruptive environment and, therefore, can benefit from receiving education and training in a new setting where a variety of support services are available around the clock. Participation in Job Corps can lead to placement in a job or enrollment in further training or education. It can also lead to educational achievements such as earning a high school diploma and gaining reading or math skills. However, the primary outcome for Job Corps participants is employment; about 64 percent of those leaving the program get jobs. Job Corps program capacity differs widely among the states because the number of centers in each state differs, and the size of individual centers within the states varies substantially. Job Corps centers are located in 46 states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico (see fig. 1). Among states with centers, the number ranges from one center in each of 19 states; to six centers each in California, Kentucky, and Oregon; to seven in New York State. In-state capacity differs according to the number of centers in each state, the size of individual centers, and the average time participants spend in the program. For example, Kentucky’s centers can serve 6,373 participants annually, nearly double the number that can be served by centers in either California (3,477) or New York (3,252); Idaho has only one center and a capacity of about 200. (See app. IV for a listing of the capacity within each state with a Job Corps center.) As shown in figure 2, Job Corps centers in 9 states had the capacity to serve over 2,000 Job Corps participants annually, whereas centers in 10 states could serve fewer than 500 participants annually. Nationwide, 41 percent of the approximately 64,000 program year 1994 Job Corps participants (about 44 percent in program year 1993) who lived in states with Job Corps centers were assigned to centers outside their home state. Openings at centers located in their states of residence were often filled by participants from other states. Those participants assigned out of state travel greater distances than those who are assigned to an in-state center. Yet, even when assigned out of state, participants tend to stay within the Labor region in which they reside. Regardless of where they are assigned, participants tend to be employed in their state of residence. Considerable variation existed among the states in the extent to which Job Corps participants were assigned to out-of-state centers (see fig. 3). In program year 1994, the majority of Job Corps participants from 15 states were assigned to centers outside their home state. For example, more than three-quarters of the Job Corps participants from Colorado, Illinois, South Carolina, and Wisconsin were assigned to centers in states other than the one in which they lived. On the other hand, less than a quarter of the youths in 16 states were assigned to out-of-state Job Corps centers. For example, less than 15 percent of the Job Corps participants from Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, and New York were assigned to centers outside their home state. (App. V lists the states included in each of the percentage groupings shown in fig. 3.) Percentage of Participants Assigned Out of State While substantial numbers of participants are assigned to out-of-state centers, the vast majority of all participants are assigned to centers within the Job Corps regions in which they reside. Nearly 95 percent of program year 1994 participants (92 percent in program year 1993) were assigned to a Job Corps center that was located in the same region as their residence. In 7 of Labor’s 10 regions, over 90 percent of Job Corps program participants were residents of the regions in which they were assigned, and in the remaining 3 regions, over 80 percent were regional residents. A portion of the remaining 5 percent who were transferred outside their region were assigned under agreements between regional directors to send participants to centers in other regions. For example, the director in region II said that he has an agreement to send approximately 150 youths to region I and 250 youths to region IV. The director in region IX assigns 400 to 600 youths to the Clearfield, Utah, center in region VIII and another 200 youths to region X. Job Corps participants assigned to centers outside their state of residence were sent to centers that were, on average, over 4 times as distant as the in-state center closest to a participant’s residence. For the approximately 26,000 youths leaving the program in program year 1994 who were assigned to out-of-state Job Corps centers, we compared the distances from their home to (1) the center to which they were assigned and (2) the in-state center nearest their residence. In 92 percent of the cases where participants were assigned out of state, there was an in-state Job Corps center closer to the participant’s home. On average, participants assigned to out-of-state centers traveled about 390 miles, whereas the closest in-state center was about 90 miles from their residence. For example, about 2,200 Florida residents were assigned to Job Corps centers in other states, traveling on average about 640 miles to attend those centers. In contrast, these participants would have traveled, on average, only about 70 miles had they been assigned to the nearest Florida center. We noted that while residents in many states were being assigned to out-of-state centers, a substantial number of nonresidents were being brought in and enrolled at in-state centers. For example, in program year 1994, of the approximately 1,000 Arkansas residents in Job Corps, about 600 (or 60 percent) were assigned to out-of-state centers. Yet, about 600 nonresidents were brought in to centers in Arkansas from other states. Similarly, in Georgia, 1,300 residents from that state were assigned to Job Corps centers located elsewhere, whereas about 1,900 individuals residing in other states were brought in to centers located in Georgia. Figure 4 shows states with large numbers (500 or more) of residents sent to out-of-state centers while large numbers of nonresidents were brought in-state. (App. VI provides, for each state, the number of nonresidents brought in from other states, as well as the number of residents sent to out-of-state centers, for program years 1994 and 1993.) Assigning participants to Job Corps centers outside their state of residence resulted in wide variations in the number of nonresidents at individual Job Corps centers nationwide. The majority of participants served at about one-third of the centers were out-of-state residents. Overall, we found that in 38 of the 113 Job Corps centers operating in program year 1994, 50 percent or more of the participants resided outside the state in which the center was located (see fig. 5). Fifteen centers had 75 percent or more nonresidents enrolled during program year 1994, and the 9 centers with the most nonresidents (85 percent or more) were located in Kentucky (6 centers), California (1), Utah (1), and West Virginia (1). Because program capacity in Kentucky, Utah, and West Virginia exceeded in-state demand, large numbers of nonresidents attended centers in these states. California, on the other hand, had insufficient capacity. Nonetheless, the number of nonresidents at the California center may have been high because it provided advanced training for participants who previously had completed some basic level of training at centers across the nation. Forty-seven centers had less than 25 percent nonresidents enrolled, including 30 centers with less than 10 percent of their program participants coming from out of state. Regardless of where Job Corps participants were assigned, those who found jobs usually did so in their home state. Of the approximately 42,000 Job Corps participants who obtained jobs after leaving the program in 1994, about 83 percent found jobs in their state of residence (85 percent in program year 1993). Even those participants who were assigned to Job Corps centers outside their state of residence generally returned to their home states for employment. Specifically, of the 18,200 participants obtaining jobs after being trained in centers outside their state of residence, about 13,700 (75 percent) obtained those jobs in their home state (see fig. 6). Regional officials stated that substantial numbers of participants were assigned to centers out of state due, in part, to Labor’s desire to fully utilize centers. The other principal reason given was to satisfy participant preferences either to be assigned to a specific center or to be enrolled in a specific occupational training course. According to Labor officials, full utilization of Job Corps centers was one of the principal reasons for assigning participants out of state. The Job Corps program does not routinely collect the reasons for out-of-state assignments and, therefore, we were unable to document the specific factors behind these decisions. However, we contacted Labor officials, including each of its nine regional directors—who are ultimately responsible for center assignments—as well as contractors responsible for 15 outreach/screening contracts, to determine what factors contributed to out-of-state assignments. For the most part, these officials stated that one of the reasons for not assigning participants to the center closest to their residence and, instead, to out-of-state centers was to ensure that centers were fully utilized. For example, they pointed out that many residents from Florida were assigned to centers in Kentucky; otherwise, centers in Kentucky would remain underutilized. A similar situation was cited with respect to participants from California assigned to a center in Utah that would otherwise be underutilized. In addition, Labor officials noted that participants were assigned to out-of-state centers to fill openings that occurred throughout the year because participants continuously leave the program due to the program’s open-entry, open-exit, self-paced format. Moreover, at any point, there may not be any state residents ready to enroll in the program. Maintaining full capacity in Job Corps centers is one measurement Labor uses in evaluating regional director performance; Labor data indicate that, except for a portion of program year 1994, the program has operated near full capacity during the previous 3 program years. Vacancies can frequently occur at Job Corps centers because of the uneven distribution of program capacity in relation to demand for services, the continuous turnover of participants at individual centers, and the irregular flow of participants into the program. Labor officials said that in program year 1994, Job Corps had an average occupancy rate of about 91 percent programwide. Average occupancy rates at the regional level, in program year 1994, ranged from about 83 percent to 97 percent. We found less evidence to support the other principal reason cited for assigning participants to distant centers—the need to satisfy participant preferences, either to attend a particular center or to receive training in a particular occupation. While the Job Corps data system does not provide information on the extent to which such preferences are considered when making assignments, we were able to gain some insight into the degree to which specific vocational offerings might explain out-of-state assignments. We analyzed the occupational training courses in which out-of-state participants were enrolled. We found that over two-thirds of these individuals were either enrolled in occupational courses commonly offered throughout the national network of Job Corps centers or were never enrolled in an occupational course at all. For example, about 13 percent of the participants sent to out-of-state centers were being trained in clerical positions (available at 91 centers), about 8 percent in food service (available at 94 centers), and 8 percent in health occupations (available at 72 centers). In addition, about 11 percent received no specific vocational offering after being assigned to an out-of-state center (see table 1). Thus, specialized training or uncommon occupational offerings do not appear to explain these out-of-state assignments. We were, however, unable to determine whether a training slot in the requested vocational area was available at the closest center when participants were assigned out of state. During our discussions with regional Job Corps officials, some said that they have recently begun to focus more on assigning participants to Job Corps centers that are located in the same state in which they reside. Region III officials incorporate in-state assignment goals into their outreach and screening contracts, and a March 1995 regional field instruction states that the region’s center assignment plan “now places greater emphasis on the assignment of youth to centers within their own state, or to centers within a closer geographical area.” Similarly, other regional officials told us that they are now placing greater emphasis on in-state assignment of youth because of increased congressional interest in having greater state involvement in the program. During program year 1994, the majority of states with Job Corps centers had sufficient capacity to handle virtually all the in-state demand (at least 90 percent of in-state participants) for Job Corps training, but this ability varied substantially among the states. We compared the demand for Job Corps services within each state with the total capacity of the centers located therein. We measured state demand in terms of the number of residents who participated in Job Corps, regardless of whether they attended a center within their state of residence or out of state. Nationwide, 52,000 of the 64,000 Job Corps participants—81 percent (86 percent in program year 1993)—either were or could have been trained in centers in their home state. As shown in figure 7, a total of 27 states had sufficient capacity in their Job Corps centers to accommodate virtually all the program participants from those states, and another 12 states could meet at least 70 percent of the demand. (App. VII lists the states in each of the percentage groupings shown in fig. 7.) We found substantial differences among states in the capacity of in-state centers to serve Job Corps participants from their state. For example, South Carolina had over 1,600 residents participating in Job Corps, but the centers in that state had the capacity to serve only about 440 participants. On the other hand, Kentucky had 485 residents in Job Corps, but had the capacity (6,373) to serve about 13 times that number of participants. Although 81 percent of Job Corps participants in program year 1994 either were or could have been served in their state of residence, the remaining 19 percent (over 11,000 youths) lived in states whose centers lacked the capacity to serve all state residents enrolled in Job Corps. For example, centers in California, Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina each would have been unable to serve over 1,000 Job Corps participants in program year 1994 in their existing centers. Figure 8 shows (for those states where demand was higher than in-state capacity) the states with Job Corps centers that had a demand that exceeded capacity by 500 or more participants. In addition, five states (Connecticut, Delaware, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Wyoming) did not have a Job Corps center in program year 1994. These states accounted for about another 1,400 participants who could not be served in their home state. On the other hand, the capacity in eight states was more than double the number of youths from their states in Job Corps. For example, Utah’s two centers could accommodate about 2,400 youths, but only about 700 state residents were in the program. Similarly, West Virginia’s centers had a capacity for about 1,100 youths, yet only about 300 West Virginia youths enrolled in Job Corps (see fig. 9). The Job Corps program’s plan to establish nine new centers over the next 2 years will provide some additional capacity that is needed in states with existing centers, but will increase capacity in three other states to about twice the in-state demand. In addition, a center opened in Connecticut (which had been without a Job Corps center) in May 1996 that will serve about 300 annually. Overall, this expansion will enable the program to serve an additional 4,000 youths in those states that had insufficient capacity. For example, planned centers in Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, and Tennessee will help those states address the shortage of available training opportunities for in-state residents, reducing the shortfall in those states from about 4,700 to 700. However, Job Corps is also planning to add centers in Maine, Massachusetts, and Michigan, providing these states with the capacity to serve nearly twice the number of state residents participating in Job Corps. In commenting on a draft of this report, Labor expressed some concerns with our presentation of certain information that it believed needed greater emphasis and with what it believed were factors we should have considered in carrying out our analysis. For example, Labor said that our characterization of in-state demand was misleading. Furthermore, it said that we did not recognize the limited availability of advanced training and its impact when calculating distance for participants assigned out of state. We have clarified our definition of demand as used in this report and recalculated distance, excluding advanced training participants, which had no impact on our finding. Labor also pointed out recent changes in program emphasis and provided some technical clarification. Labor’s comments, along with our responses, are printed in appendix IX. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; relevant congressional committees; and other interested parties. Copies will be made available to others on request. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-7014 or Sigurd Nilsen at (202) 512-7003. Major contributors to this report include Dianne Murphy Blank, Jeremiah Donoghue, Thomas Medvetz, Arthur Merriam, and Wayne Sylvia. We designed our study to gather information on how Job Corps is currently operating in terms of where participants are recruited, trained, and placed. To do so, we analyzed Labor’s Job Corps participant data file and interviewed Job Corps officials and recruiting contractors. To analyze where Job Corps participants are recruited from, assigned for training, and placed in jobs, we used Labor’s Student Pay, Allotment and Management Information System (SPAMIS). Among other things, the database contains information on the placement and screening contractor for each participant. We analyzed data on Job Corps participants who left the program during program year 1994 (July 1, 1994, through June 30, 1995), the most recent full year for which data were available. To help determine whether program year 1994 was a unique year with regard to participant assignment, we performed similar analyses on comparable data for program year 1993. Unless otherwise stated, however, all numbers cited in the report reflect program year 1994 data. Our basic population consisted of all participants who left the program during program year 1994 from 113 Job Corps centers. There were 66,022 participants included in this population. Two Job Corps centers have since closed, but participants from these centers were included in our analysis. This basic population was used for the analysis of capacity and average length of stay. We eliminated participant files with missing information or for participants who resided in Puerto Rico or outside the United States. We also eliminated from our analyses those participants from states without Job Corps centers. This brought our analytic population to 64,060. Certain analyses dealt with subpopulations of the basic population. For example, for the analysis of where participants obtained jobs, only those 41,975 cases where the file indicated a job placement were used. For program year 1993, the file indicated that 35,116 participants obtained jobs. To determine how far participants traveled when attending out-of-state centers, we calculated the straight-line distance from the participant’s residence to the last assigned out-of-state center. The distance was calculated using the centroid—or center—for the zip code of the participants’ residence at entry and for the Job Corps center attended. The 5-Digit Zip Code Inventory File—part of the Statistical Analysis System library—provided the centroid’s latitude and longitude. These latitude and longitude measures became the basis for the distance computations. To determine whether an in-state center was closer, we calculated the straight-line distance from the participant’s residence to the nearest Job Corps center located in the participant’s state of residence. We then compared this distance with the distance to the Job Corps center of assignment. Our distance analysis was dependent upon having consistent address and zip code information for the participants’ residences and Job Corps centers, and the related longitude and latitude for those zip codes. Longitude and latitude data for locations outside the 50 states were not available. Thus, 989 program year 1994 participants from Puerto Rico were not included in the analysis. Another 680 participants were excluded from the analysis because either their zip code was not consistent with the state of residence information or they were missing state or zip code information. Because our focus for this analysis was on participants who lived in a state with a Job Corps center, we also excluded 1,434 participants who came from states that did not have Job Corps centers; these participants had to be assigned to out-of-state centers. This brought the total of the population for this analysis to 62,391 in program year 1994. This includes all participants regardless of the type of training program in which they participated. Table I.1 presents a summary of the subgroup sizes for analyses performed on program years 1994 and 1993 data. Excluded participant files for missing information (61) (337) Excluded participants not residing in United States, District of Columbia, or Puerto Rico (467) (444) Total terminees in our population Total terminees in states without Job Corps centers (1,434) (1,670) Total terminees in states with Job Corps centers Excluded participant files with longitude and latitude data unavailable (989) (940) Excluded participant files with inconsistent or missing zip code data (680) (422) To calculate the program year 1994 capacity of each Job Corps center, we used Labor’s listing of residential and nonresidential capacity at any one time (slots) for each Job Corps center and multiplied it by the average number of days in a year (365.25 days). We then divided that number by the average length of stay of program year 1994 terminees at that center. For example, the Carl D. Perkins Job Corps Center in Prestonsburg, Kentucky, had a stated capacity of 245 slots and a program year 1994 average length of stay of 236.56 days. We calculated the yearly capacity of the Perkins’ Center at 378 participants (245 times 365.25 divided by 236.56). On this basis, we performed center-by-center calculations and aggregated them to the state level to estimate a yearly capacity by state. To estimate in-state demand, we used all program participants from that state, regardless of where they were assigned, as a proxy measure. We recognize that this does not reflect total program demand, which would also include those who are eligible and interested in Job Corps but had not yet enrolled in the program. To obtain information on the process the Job Corps program uses to assign participants to centers, we interviewed Labor officials in the nine regional offices, as well as at headquarters. Using a semistructured interview protocol, we asked questions related to how participants are assigned to Job Corps centers, including the program’s policies and procedures for participant assignments, the responsibilities and documentation requirements for each level of oversight, and the assignment patterns for participants within the regions. Additionally, we asked questions based on the analysis of program year 1993 assignment information (because program year 1994 data were not yet available at the time) that showed the extent to which participants were assigned out of state and out of region. Each official was also asked to comment on the current assignment patterns for participants within their regions. To obtain additional information on the Job Corps participant assignment process, we interviewed a sample of contractors responsible for 15 recruiting contracts. Using the program year 1993 assignment data contained in SPAMIS, we selected the top 16 large-scale recruiting contracts—defined as those that assigned over 300 participants to Job Corps centers—with the highest proportion of participants who were sent out of state. For contrast, we also chose three other recruiting contracts from the same locations that had relatively few out-of-state assignments. Each contractor was interviewed by telephone using a semistructured interview protocol that included questions relating to the Job Corps’ participant assignment process. Specifically, we asked about the status of their recruiting contract(s) and their responsibilities and reporting requirements. We also asked the recruiting contractors to identify those factors that had the most impact on their decision on where to assign a participant. Some of the contractors were no longer under contract, and others could not be reached. As a result, we interviewed contractors responsible for 13 contracts that had a large proportion of participants recruited for out-of-state centers and 2 contracts that had relatively fewer participants going out of state. While our questions were based on the analysis of program year 1993 assignment information, we also asked each recruiting contractor to comment on his or her current student assignment patterns. We selected recruiting contractors to interview on the basis of their assignment of participants to centers outside participants’ states of residence. This selection process was not random and, therefore, the results reported cannot be generalized to recruiting contractors overall. Our distance analysis was based upon zip code centroid and is intended to provide a gross measure of distance. Actual travel distances may vary. The average length of stay of participants at Job Corps centers can show some variation from year to year, as would the estimated center capacity when calculated from this number. To illustrate these variations, we have presented program year 1993 data alongside data for program year 1994 (see app. II). While we did not verify the accuracy of the SPAMIS data provided by Labor, we did check the consistency of participants’ zip code and state of residence data and eliminated those files with inconsistent information. We also compared the results from our analyses of program year 1994 data with those from program year 1993 for consistency at the national, regional, and state levels. Percentage assigned to centers in home state Percentage sent to centers in other states Percentage of state residents assigned to out-of-state centers Number of states assigning 0-24 percent of state residents out of state Number of states assigning 25-49 percent of state residents out of state Number of states assigning 50-74 percent of state residents out of state Number of states assigning 75%+ state residents out of state Percentage of Job Corps participants assigned to centers in same region as residence Average distance traveled (in miles) by participants assigned to out-of-state centers Average distance (in miles) to nearest in-state center for those participants assigned to out-of-state centers Percentage of center participants from out of state Number of centers having 0-24 percent of participants from out of state Number of centers having 25-49 percent of participants from out of state Number of centers having 50-74 percent of participants from out of state Number of centers having 75+ percent participants from out of state Number of participants obtaining jobs Number of participants obtaining jobs in home state Percentage obtaining jobs in home state Number of participants that were or could have been trained in state (continued) Number of participants who were Brought in from other states (continued) Number of participants who were Brought in from other states Number of participants who were Brought in from other states (continued) Number of participants who were Brought in from other states The centers in Alaska and North Dakota (one in each state) were not fully operational in program year 1993. The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Labor’s letter dated June 3, 1996. 1. The legislative language relating to the assignment of enrollees to Job Corps centers is included in the Background section of the report. 2. We have modified our report to note that the Job Corps regional operations are carried out under the direction of nine regional managers. 3. We agree that participants transferring into advanced training may be required to travel additional miles to attend this training. To respond to Labor’s comments, we attempted to identify all the participants included in our analysis who transferred into advanced training courses. We were able to identify all participants who transferred from the original center to which they were assigned, regardless of the reason for transfer, but the information was not available to identify those specifically transferring to advanced training programs. Nonetheless, eliminating from our analysis the over 1,800 participants who transferred between centers did not change our findings. The average distance traveled by participants assigned to out-of-state centers was 375 miles, compared with about 390 miles when including the over 1,800; the distance to the nearest in-state center remained the same—93 miles. Thus, our finding—that participants assigned to centers outside their state of residence were sent to centers that were, on average, over 4 times as far as the closest in-state center—is unchanged. 4. We have modified our report, where appropriate, to indicate that our use of the term “demand” is limited to only those enrolling in Job Corps and that it does not include those who are eligible and interested in the program but have not yet enrolled. 5. Our report provides a separate section with a caption that highlights that program participants are employed in their state of residence. 6. We have clarified our report to recognize that the high number of nonresidents in the California center cited may have been due to the nature of the training offered, that is, the center provided advanced training to participants from across the nation. 7. The reasons for assigning participants to out-of-state centers cited in our report are based on comments by those involved in deciding where enrollees are actually assigned—the nine regional directors and several outreach/screening contractors. The principal reasons cited were to fully use available space at the centers and to satisfy participants’ preferences either to attend a specific center or to enroll in a specific occupational training course. 8. As suggested, we have included a statement in the Results in Brief section that recognizes our inability to determine whether specific vocational training slots were available at the closest center when participants were enrolled. 9. We have included a statement on page 4 of our report to recognize Job Corps’ proactive role in ensuring that the program works more closely with state and local agencies. Job Corps: Comparison of Federal Program With State Youth Training Initiatives (GAO/HEHS-96-92, Mar. 28, 1996). Job Corps Program (GAO/HEHS-96-61R, Nov. 9, 1995). Job Corps: High Costs and Mixed Results Raise Questions About Program’s Effectiveness (GAO/HEHS-95-180, June 30, 1995). 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: (1) locations of Job Corps centers and their capacity by state; (2) extent to which Job Corps participants are trained and placed in jobs in the state in which they reside; and (3) reasons why participants are sent to centers outside their state of residence. GAO found that: (1) Job Corps program capacity differs among states because the number of centers in each state differs and the size of individual centers within each state differs; (2) in 1994, 41 percent of the 64,000 participants who lived in states with Job Corps centers were assigned to centers outside their home state; (3) the extent of out-of-state assignments varied among states; (4) participants assigned to centers outside their home state were sent to centers that were, on average, over 4 times as distant as the closest in-state center; (5) in many states, Job Corps residents were sent to out-of-state centers, while nonresidents were enrolled at in-state centers; (6) the number of nonresidents varied among individual Job Corps centers during 1994; (7) regardless of where participants were assigned, those who found jobs usually did so in their home state; (8) participants were assigned to centers outside their home state to fully utilize centers or to satisfy particular vocational preferences; (9) the recent trend has been to assign program residents to in-state centers; (10) in 1994, most in-state Job Corps centers had sufficient capacity to accommodate almost all in-state Job Corps participants; and (11) the nine new centers will provide some needed additional capacity in some states and increase capacity in three states to about twice the in-state demand.

As required by section 11 of the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-271), GAO is providing its final report not later than 6 years after the date of the Act’s enactment. This report provides, as required by the Act, (1) a summary of the information included in GAO’s annual reports for the fiscal year 2005 through 2009 reporting cycle for sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10; (2) recommendations for any legislative changes to sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10; and (3) any assessment furnished by the GAO Personnel Appeals Board or any interested groups or associations representing officers and employees of GAO. Table 1 provides a summary of the number of employees separated from the agency under both the agency-wide and exception provisions for voluntary early retirement in fiscal years 2005 through 2009. The voluntary separation incentive provision requires us to make the payment out of current appropriations and to pay an additional amount into the retirement fund, which at a minimum is equal to 45 percent of the basic pay of the employee who is receiving the payment. Thus, the cost of using this flexibility is considerable and, given the many demands on our resources, this provision was not used during the 5-year reporting period. Section 3(a) of the Act authorized the Comptroller General to determine the amount of annual pay adjustments for its officers and employees and described the factors to be considered in making those determinations. This provision amended 31 U.S.C. 732(c)—which required employees’ pay to be adjusted at the same time and to the same extent as the General Schedule. Under section 3(b) the Comptroller General’s authority to establish the annual pay adjustment is also applicable to employees in the Senior Executive Service (SES) and in Senior Level (SL) positions. Under both sections 3(a) and 3(b) an employee must be performing at a satisfactory level in order to receive an annual pay adjustment In January 2006, we issued regulations addressing the satisfactory performance requirement for GAO’s analysts and attorneys. Pursuant to the regulation, GAO analysts and attorneys had to be performing at “Meets Expectations” in all competencies to be considered satisfactory. In addition, most Band IIB and Band III analysts, had to have a performance appraisal that was in the top 50 percent or 80 percent, respectively, of their band and team. In subsequent years this added condition was not required. Since the annual adjustment is a significant component of employees’ annual compensation, limiting its applicability to satisfactory performers is critical to the integrity of GAO’s overall pay for performance system. For calendar years 2006 through 2009, consistent with section 31 U.S.C. 732 (c)(3), the Comptroller General considered various data to determine the amount of GAO’s annual adjustments, including salary planning data reported by the professional services, public administration, and general industry organizations; the General Schedule adjustment; the amount of Performance Based Compensation (PBC) and the appropriate distribution of funds between the annual adjustment and PBC. and GAO’s funding levels. The Comptroller General provided an annual adjustment in 2006 and 2007 of 2.6 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively, to those who were performing at a satisfactory level and who were paid within applicable competitive compensation limits, except for wage-grade employees, and GAO Personnel Appeals Board employees. In addition to the annual adjustment, GAO employees were eligible for PBC based on their performance appraisal ratings. PBC was calculated using a budget factor of 2.15 percent for both 2006 and 2007. Under section 3(b), the Comptroller General is required to consider the statutory criteria set out in section 3(a) in determining an annual increase for members of the GAO SES and SL employees. The Comptroller General considered these criteria and determined that each member performing at a satisfactory level would receive in 2006 and 2007 a 1.9 percent and 1.7 percent increase, respectively—the same increase that was provided to the Executive Schedule for calendar years 2006 and 2007, respectively. In 2007, SES and SL members were also eligible for PBC using a budget factor of 2.25 percent. In 2008, after the Comptroller General made preliminary determinations regarding pay adjustments as had been done in 2006 and 2007, GAO management negotiated with representatives of the newly established GAO Employees Association, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE) Local 1921 to reach final agreement regarding salary adjustments. In addition to the annual adjustment, GAO employees were eligible for PBC based on their performance appraisal ratings. Pay adjustments for GAO staff included an annual adjustment of 3.5 percent as well as performance based compensation using a budget factor of 2.75 percent. In 2008, for the first time, GAO implemented a “floor guarantee.” The 2008 floor guarantee provided that if the total increase from the annual adjustment and PBC did not equal at least 4.49 percent of salary, the employee would receive an additional increase to base pay to equal this amount regardless of geographic location. For example, in Washington, D.C., the floor guarantee ensured that all staff received a base pay increase of at least 4.49 percent and was provided without regard to pay range maximums limited only by the GS-15, step 10, statutory maximum rate. In providing the floor guarantee to staff, the additional amount required to bring the base pay adjustment to 4.49 percent of salary was deducted from any PBC bonus. Overall, the average total dollar amount resulting from employees’ annual adjustments, PBC base pay increases and bonuses, and floor guarantees was approximately 6.12 percent of salary. GAO employees participating in one of GAO’s development programs (Professional Development Program, Attorney Development Program, Communication Analysts Pay Process, Program and Technical Development Program, and Administrative Pay Process) received the 3.5 percent annual adjustment, not to exceed the maximum rate of their bands. These employees were not eligible for the floor guarantee because they received additional performance-based salary increases every 6 months for the 2-year duration of the development program. GAO’s SES and SL employees were provided the same 2.5 percent increase authorized for the executive branch. SES and SL members were also eligible for PBC using a budget factor of 2.25 percent. The PBC was provided to the SES and SL staff as a base pay increase not to exceed $169,300. Employees of GAO’s Personnel Appeals Board and student employees are paid according to GS rates, and GAO’s wage grade employees are paid according to the Federal Wage System (FWS) salary rates. These employees received the same percentage across-the-board adjustment on the same effective date as the increases authorized for GS and FWS employees in the executive branch. The pay ranges for these employees incorporated the changes made to the comparable executive branch pay ranges. Prior to the annual adjustment for 2009, the Government Accountability Office Act of 2008, Public Law 110-323, September 22, 2008, was passed. Under section 2 of this Act, the so called “floor guarantee”, as described above, was enacted into law as section 731(j) of title 31, United States Code. For year 2009, following preliminary determinations by the Acting Comptroller General and negotiations between management and IFPTE Local 1921, GAO employees received an annual adjustment equal to the “floor guarantee,” which, for example, equaled 4.78 percent in Washington, D.C. In addition, employees were eligible for performance based compensation using a 2.65 percent budget factor. GAO’s SES and SL employees rated “Fully Successful” were provided a 2.8 percent pay adjustment pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 733(a)(3)(B) effective January 4, 2009. SES and SL members were also eligible for PBC using a budget factor of 2.65 percent. PBC was provided to the SES and SL staff as a permanent base pay increase not to exceed $174,000. As in 2008, employees of GAO’s Personnel Appeals Board and student employees were paid according to GS rates, and GAO’s wage grade employees are paid according to the Federal Wage System (FWS) salary rates. These employees received the same percentage across-the-board adjustment on the same effective date as the increases authorized for GS and FWS employees in the executive branch. The pay ranges for these employees incorporated the changes made to the comparable executive branch pay ranges. In fiscal years 2005 through 2009, there were no extraordinary economic conditions or budgetary constraints that had a significant impact on the determination of the annual pay adjustments. Section 4 authorizes the Comptroller General to establish pay retention regulations applicable to employees who are placed in lower grades or bands as a result of workforce restructuring, reclassification, or other appropriate circumstances. Table 2 summarizes these data for fiscal years 2005 through 2009. Under section 6, certain key employees with less than 3 years’ service for purposes of leave accrual may be treated as if they had 3 years of federal service. Therefore, they would earn 160 hours on an annual basis instead of 104 hours. These key employees must be occupying positions that are difficult to fill or have unique or unusually high qualifications and would be difficult to recruit without additional incentives. Table 3 shows the number of employees receiving this flexibility in fiscal years 2005 through 2009. Section 7 authorized GAO to establish an Executive Exchange Program. After soliciting and analyzing employees’ comments on draft regulations, we issued the final regulations for GAO’s Executive Exchange Program on May 20, 2005. The authority was not used in fiscal years 2006, 2008, or 2009. However, during fiscal year 2007, this authority was used to bring in two executives from private industry, each for a period of 4 months. At GAO, the executives worked on several special projects related to federal agency audits and agency financial statement issues. In addition to helping revise the GAO/PCIE Financial Audit Manual, they used their experience as auditors of agency financial statements to help develop protocols to help GAO interact with the agency-level auditors (inspectors general as well as public accounting firms) during GAO’s audit of the U.S. government’s consolidated financial statement. This program was considered a success from GAO’s standpoint and it met the expectation of the private industry employer that was involved. The authority expired on July 7, 2009. Section 9 relates to GAO’s performance management system and, among other things, requires a link between the performance management system and the agency’s strategic plan, adequate training on the implementation and operation of the system, and a process for ensuring ongoing performance feedback. Even before the imposition of these requirements, GAO’s performance management system was in conformity with the statutory requirements of section 9. In fiscal years 2005 and 2006, we conducted annual reviews and assessments of our performance management policies and processes and made improvements, when appropriate. During fiscal year 2007, an evaluation of the fiscal year 2006 appraisal and pay cycle was deferred pending the outcome of the then-ongoing union election. In fiscal year 2008, GAO undertook various initiatives to ensure the performance management system met its objectives and provided an even playing field for all employees. In response to continuing differences between African American and Caucasian analyst performance appraisal averages, the Ivy Planning Group conducted an independent assessment of the factors that may influence these differences, and was also tasked with identifying what additional steps GAO could take. A final report was issued on April 25, 2008, which contained over 25 major recommendations. GAO is committed to implementing the Ivy Planning Group’s recommendations and has a number of efforts completed and underway to address the recommendations. In fiscal year 2009, the agency continued to pursue actions designed to ensure that the system met its objectives and was fair and equitable for all employees. GAO established its Management Improvement Priorities Action Plan that includes five areas of concentration: recognizing and valuing diversity; reassessing the performance appraisal system; managing workload, sustaining quality, and streamlining processes; enhancing staffing practices and developing the workforce; and, finally, strengthening recruitment and retention incentives. Projects within these five areas originated from multiple sources, including the Ivy Planning Group's recommendations, CG Special Projects, and suggestions received over time from GAO staff at all levels throughout the agency. These areas also reflect the ongoing efforts of the Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness, QCI, the Human Capital Office, and the Chief Administrative Office. GAO completed one of the key management improvement projects—a full, systematic, and inclusive review of the performance appraisal system. The objectives of the review were to examine what works, what does not, and what could be done better. Data collected included a comprehensive content analysis of existing data, the results of 28 focus groups of employees, and 53 semistructured interviews with managing directors and a random sample of SES/SL, Band III, and field office managers. In addition, GAO conducted an agencywide, Web-based survey of employees, with an overall survey response rate of 67 percent. Data from all of these sources were synthesized into a final report issued in November 2009 with extensive findings and short- and long-term recommendations for improving GAO’s performance appraisal system. Planning for implementing the recommendations is in progress with over 50 percent of the short-term recommendations already under way. GAO has also established a steering committee composed of managers and employees including representatives from IFPTE Local 1921 to guide the direction of a more extensive contractor review of the current system to address the findings from the systematic review of the appraisal system. GAO continues to provide continuing training on the performance appraisal system and the roles and responsibilities of staff, supervisors, and managers. To ensure that all designated performance managers are knowledgeable about appraisal policies, procedures, and practices, GAO required all raters to take online training prior to preparing fiscal year 2008 ratings. Each subsequent year, all new designated performance managers must take online training. GAO also continues to expand staff, supervisory and managerial training and development to include offerings in how to give and receive feedback. Lastly, during this period, GAO instituted consistent practices across the organization with regard to the review of ratings. Designated performance managers present their preliminary ratings of staff to all Senior Executive Service reviewers. This panel helps to ensure that all raters are consistently applying the rating criteria. Section 10 requires us to consult with any interested groups or associations representing officers and employees of GAO when implementing changes brought about by this Act. Typically, in implementing changes such as those in this Act, we have consulted with interested groups and associations within GAO, provided them with draft policies and regulations, and obtained input from them on suggested clarifications or changes to the policies and regulations. We carefully considered this input and have incorporated it, when appropriate, before distributing policies and regulations for comment to all employees. In 2007, GAO Band I and Band II analysts, auditors, specialists, and investigators, and staff in the Professional Development Program, elected to be represented by a union and established IFPTE, Local 1921. In 2008, GAO and IFPTE, Local 1921, reached an interim collective bargaining agreement. GAO is committed to continuing to work constructively with IFPTE, Local 1921, to finalize and implement a master term collective bargaining agreement. GAO management actively consults with IFPTE Local 1921; the Employee Advisory Council-which is comprised of headquarters and field administrative, professional, and support staff (APSS), as well as Assistant Directors in analyst and analyst-related positions, and attorneys-and the Diversity Advisory Council-comprised of diversity representatives of IFPTE, Local 1921, and employee liaison groups for employees who are disabled, Asian-American, African-American, Hispanic, veterans of the armed forces, people over 40, and advocates for nondiscrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity-to hear and consider employee needs, concerns, and suggestions as they arise. IFPTE, Local 1921; the Employee Advisory Council; and the Diversity Advisory Council (DAC) are the primary mechanisms for fostering collaboration and open communication between GAO management and staff. GAO provided all employees with the opportunity to comment on draft orders concerning proposed policies and regulations prior to publication in final form. These steps were taken in regard to the promulgation of all policies and regulations implementing the provisions of the Human Capital Reform Act of 2004. The Executive Committee considered all input from Employee Advisory Council and Diversity Advisory Council members and other GAO employees before implementing any changes. Although GAO specifically solicited comments from the PAB, IFPTE Local 1921, the DAC, and the EAC, only the PAB responded to this request with comments. These are included in appendix I. IFPTE Local 1921 informed GAO management that it will provide its input directly to Congress. The flexibilities provided in the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004, along with the human capital flexibilities provided in the 2002 and 2008 Acts, have provided GAO with the ability to attract and retain high caliber employees so that GAO can meet its responsibilities to the Congress and the American people. GAO is making no recommendations for legislative change.

As required by section 11 of the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 108-271), GAO is providing its final report not later than 6 years after the date of the Act's enactment. This report provides, as required by the Act, (1) a summary of the information included in GAO's annual reports for the fiscal year 2005 through 2009 reporting cycle for sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10; (2) recommendations for any legislative changes to sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10; and (3) any assessment furnished by the GAO Personnel Appeals Board or any interested groups or associations representing officers and employees of GAO.

— Gen. Ahmed al Berri, the top officer of the Western-backed Syrian rebels in Hama province, was driving up Syria’s main north-south highway in mid-December when he slowed at a checkpoint, expecting a friendly wave-through by the radical Islamists who were manning it. The fighters of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, most of them non-Syrians, had something else in mind, however. “They wanted the car, and I refused to give it,” he recounted to McClatchy. “They showed their weapons, and we showed ours.” But there were “30 of them and only four of us,” so he agreed to go with his two bodyguards and a second officer for what the Islamists said would be an appearance before a Shariah court judge. Instead, Berri and his companions were arrested, blindfolded and bound. For the next 18 days, Berri said, he was held in a makeshift prison inside a house in the village of Killi, about five miles south of the Turkish border. For Berri, it was a surprising introduction to a radical group that in the space of a few months had come to dominate much of northern and eastern Syria, lording it over more moderate rebels and installing a reign of terror the extent of which is only now becoming clear. “They were professionals,” Berri said of the men who regularly interrogated him in two-hour sessions. Each of his questioners – two were Syrians and the others were from Egypt and Tunisia – focused on a different topic. One would ask when he defected from the Syrian army, a second would ask what weapons he’d brought with him and a third questioned him about his contacts. They grilled him about his relationships with Americans, Turks, Qataris and Saudis – all countries that have provided aid to rebel groups. “Their aim was to know what the rebels were doing, what weapons they are using, how they’re distributing forces, who they’re in contact with outside the country and what their goals are,” Berri said. And they sought to identify fighters in his militia, the sort of information that an ostensible ally could obtain by much simpler means. “It was like Syrian intelligence,” he said, “concentrating on minor details.” He added, “It indicates they know their business very well.” Berri said the entire compound in Killi appeared to have been organized around the prison and interrogation process, rather than war-fighting. He estimated that at least 100 armed personnel were deployed to run and guard it, including his team of “professional” interrogators. How the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria became a dominant force in Syria’s rebellion against the government of President Bashar Assad in just a few months after it announced its formation last April is a mystery. It was considered an ally by most other rebels until well into the summer; the U.S.-backed Free Syrian Army even praised its role in the August capture of the Mannagh air base north of Aleppo, which other rebel groups had been besieging for more than a year, unsuccessfully, until two ISIS suicide bombers blew themselves up and destroyed the base’s command center. But its enmity toward much of the rebel movement had been growing. In July, it kidnapped the leader of a rival rebel group in Raqqa, who hasn’t been seen since. In August, it bombed that group’s Raqqa headquarters, killing many of its commanders. In September, it seized the town of Azaz from the Free Syrian Army, and it took control of several major crossing points along the border with Turkey, cutting other rebels from their supply routes. The consequences for Syria’s opposition movement could be many, and severe: As extemists have co-opted the revolution, the U.S. and other countries have hesitated to help or have even suspended aid to Syria’s rebels, fearing the spread of radical Islam. Last month, moderate and Islamist rebel militias combined forces to attack ISIS throughout northern Syria, forcing it to abandon Killi and roughly half its bases, and releasing hundreds from ISIS jails. But ISIS remains the dominant rebel force in Raqqa province and in much of eastern Syria, where it controls the country’s oil fields and its transit routes to Iraq, where ISIS traces its origin. ISIS’s stated aim is to restore a medieval Islamic caliphate in the area now occupied by Syria and Iraq. But moderate Syrian activists wonder now whether it doesn’t serve some other purpose. They note that its primary mode of reaching its goal has been through the abduction primarily of Assad opponents, the torture and interrogation of its detainees and massive theft. Rebel leaders don’t hesitate to link ISIS to the Assad regime, though the evidence they cite is largely circumstantial. Its claim to al Qaida lineage has been rejected by that group’s head, Ayman al Zawahiri, who last week pronounced that not only had al Qaida opposed ISIS’s move into Syria, but al Qaida also hadn’t been consulted on it. On the eve of last month’s uprising, the newly elected overall rebel commander, Jamal Maarouf, said his forces were attacking ISIS because it “behaves like” the Assad regime, according to an interview in “Syria’s Second Front,” a documentary to be shown Tuesday on the PBS news program “Frontline.” At its peak, a McClatchy investigation shows, ISIS had at least 60 bases in northern Syria. Opposition activists say that almost every one of them had a prison. About half of those remain under ISIS control. Interviews with others who’ve been freed from ISIS prisons show the extent to which the group mixed professionalism with terrorism and torture. Bunyamin Aygun, a Turkish photojournalist who was held for 40 days, said he was questioned for 17 days at Killi by interrogators who took precautions in verifying his statements that he was journalist. “They were very professional in the way they did background checks,” he told McClatchy. They asked him for the dates of his photographs, rather than looking him up under his name, fearing that Turkish authorities would track down a routine Web search for him coming from Syria. And they took his credit card and PIN number to a bank in Reyhanli, inside Turkey on the border, to search his bank account and see whether his earnings were that of a journalist and not a spy. What wasn’t so professional was the supposed “court” that decided his case. “I was never actually put on trial,” he said. “They just told me my case was going before the qaid (judge) and he would decide.” One day later he was told he’d been sentenced to death by beheading. His captors told him he should repent and read the Quran, and his execution would take place the next day. At that point, Turkish news outlets began to write about his disappearance. His jailers told him that he was “more important than we thought” and decided not to kill him. Aygun was rescued when rebel forces seized Killi on Jan. 5. Other prisoners told similar tales that rebel authorities memorialized in statements McClatchy reviewed. They reveal not only torture and abuse, but also an ISIS fixation on property and cash that provides insight into the group’s finances. Well-informed humanitarian aid officials say ISIS relied in part on ransoms paid by foreign news organizations and aid organizations for the release of kidnapped workers. Expropriation of private property appears to be another method. Rae Sha’abo an Naser, a 35-year-old taxi driver from Sarmande, near the city of Idlib, told his rescuers that he’d been beaten, tied to the ceiling and doused with water and forced to sit naked out of doors. Throughout it all, his interrogators asked him about the property of his brother, who’d emigrated to Hungary. “They asked me to give them the keys to his farmhouse,” he said in his statement. That, too, was a theme in another of ISIS’s prisons, this one at the former eye hospital in Aleppo, Syria’s largest city, where ISIS became a force in August. Khalid A., 25, a media activist who’s worked for the anti-Assad opposition and who asked not to be identified by his full name because of security concerns, said he was held there after he was stopped in mid-August by a black four-wheel-drive car that blocked the road. Masked gunmen seized him and took him to the recently captured Mannagh air base. On the way into a building four men beat him with cables, and after he was taken to his room, a non-Syrian, possibly an Iraqi, interrogated him about his job and his contacts. The beatings after his transfer to the eye hospital were worse, he said. For most of his 34 days there, he was held in a makeshift underground dungeon with 10 other people. For five days, he had no food at all and later only a half-pound of bread a day. He lost 66 pounds in prison. “People were in a tragic state,” he told McClatchy of the others in his cell. “One had bones broken. Another couldn’t walk. Another couldn’t use his hands, after being hanged from the ceiling for 22 days. And there was ‘Abu Tony,’ an elderly Christian who’d been held for 60 days, and was given no medicine for his diabetes.” Everyone was there for a reason. “There were no random abductions,” he said. “Everyone had been captured by name,” many of them arrested at their houses. Abu Tony was accused of converting to Islam and then trying to re-convert to Christianity, charges Khalid said were almost certainly specious. The real reason for holding him, Khalid suspected, was that he owned a metalworking factory in Aleppo that ISIS wanted to expropriate. There were two brothers, aged 25 and 28, who owned a flour mill and farm near the air base. Khalid said they told him they’d donated weapons to the Free Syrian Army to help in the siege of the base but that ISIS had accused them of supporting Assad’s military. But the real reason they were arrested, Khalid said, was probably their wealth. The brothers said ISIS had taken their cars, 200,000 euros - about $270,000 - and more than 37 pounds of gold, worth about $750,000 at today’s prices. One day, Khalid said, the guards removed them from the room, and they never returned. Many of the guards and interrogators, Khalid said, had been on death row at Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi maximum-security prison west of Baghdad, and had escaped during an al Qaida-organized breakout in mid-July. Other guards were volunteers from Tunisia, Afghanistan, France, Denmark and Chechnya. One of the Iraqis concealed a tattoo – forbidden in Islam – beneath his shirtsleeve. The Chechen escorted prisoners for their once-daily excursion to the toilet. “He only had two words of Arabic,” Khalid said. Khalid’s first interrogation in Aleppo occurred seven days after his abduction. The investigation room smelled of diesel fuel, and he could smell blood on the floor. Hooded, he couldn’t see who was attaching electrodes to his back and neck. “They tied my hands behind my back, sat me on the ground and asked me how I was,” he recalled. Then they turned on the power. “No one said anything. They just used electricity for 40-50 minutes.” They paused for about a minute between jolts; the longest, he said, lasted about 10 seconds. At the end, “I couldn’t see or hear anything for 10 minutes. My system was completely confused. I couldn’t stand up.” His captors then hanged him by the handcuffs in what is called a “ghost” torture. He dislocated his shoulder and was later diagnosed as having a herniated disk. After another hour, two men with electrical cables beat him – he calculated 400 to 500 times. “My body was purple from the pelvis to the neck,” he recalled. “I was shouting and yelling. I don’t remember what I said. I remember the pain.” He lost consciousness. “I couldn’t handle the pain.” He showed a reporter large welts on his upper left back, where he said the electrode had been attached. On the second day, his captors brought him in for interrogation about opposition forces, the Free Syrian Army, his job, his bosses and his co-workers. Finally, a man described as a judge came in. “You must be killed,” Khalid recalled him saying. “Do you prefer a rope or a knife?” Khalid said he replied, “Maybe a bullet in the head would be better.” The “judge” responded that he’d decided to slaughter him with a knife. One of the guards came, grabbed Khalid by the hair and put a knife to his throat. “Get ready to face your God,” the “judge” said. “I said, ‘I’m ready. I don’t want to face another interrogation,’ ” he said. “I felt the angel of death pass in front of me,” Khalid told McClatchy. But the knife stroke never came. Ten days later he was released. Hundreds of prisoners weren’t so lucky. The “Frontline” special includes video of masked gunmen executing seven Free Syrian Army soldiers in al Atarib in late November, shooting them in the back of the head. In a Dec. 19 report, Amnesty International quotes detainees who reported on two ISIS executions in or near Raqqa in eastern Syria in mid-October. Four members of other armed militias were condemned to death after purported trials. “Take him away for retribution. Let his head fly,” the prisoner quoted the unnamed emir as decreeing for each of the four. That night, guards called out the names of the prisoners and they were taken away, never to reappear. Three others were sentenced to death for alleged adultery. As described by freed detainees, ISIS devoted enormous resources to find, seize, hold and interrogate its prisoners. But even as it set up a state within a state, the Assad regime left ISIS untouched. Khalid recalled that in the 34 days he was held in Aleppo, the regime never attacked the ISIS base. But the base of Liwa al Tawhid, an Islamist militia, just 50 yards away, “was bombed many times.” Berri recalled that during his time at the house in Killi, Syrian government forces never attacked the camp. Berri eventually was released, thanks to influential friends. A brigade of Hama fighters mounted a siege of an ISIS base near Saraqeb and threatened to attack it if anything happened to him. And a delegation of Islamic clerics went to the Shariah court in Ad Dana, the ISIS headquarters, and warned that 10,000 militants were ready to attack if anything happened to Berri, he said. To prevent him from being abducted, the clerics arrived Dec. 23 in a convoy of seven vehicles, mounted with heavy machine guns. It still took eight days before he was freed. Even then, Berri’s captors refused to release the second officer and the bodyguards. So Berri returned to the prison until the judge who’d ordered his release freed them. When Berri left, they kept his car and his personal effects: “my wallet, my money, my ring, everything.” Five days later, Syrian rebels stormed the Killi camp and freed it. This story is part of a collaboration between McClatchy and “Frontline,” whose documentary “Syria’s Second Front” will air Tuesday, Feb. 11. Check your local listings for the time. You can also join a live Web chat below on Wednesday at 1 p.m. ET with FRONTLINE correspondent Muhammad Ali and McClatchy's Roy Gutman. Syria's Second Front Email: [email protected]; Twitter: @roygutmanmcc ||||| BAGHDAD — A series of daring but little noticed breakouts from Iraqi prisons has freed hundreds of hardened militants who are now among the leaders and foot soldiers of the radical Sunni groups operating in neighboring Syria and, increasingly, in Iraq itself. The role of the former inmates in fueling a new wave of Sunni jihad across the region is an unfortunate reminder of the breakdown of authority in Iraq since the United States departed in 2011, of the security vacuum that has spread around the region and of the continuing threat of Sunni-led terrorist groups that the United States said it was fighting during its occupation of Iraq. The prison breaks also reflect the surging demand for experienced fighters, which led to a concerted effort by militant groups, particularly the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, to seek them in the one place where they were held en masse — Iraq’s prison cells. That group even had a name for its prison strategy, “Operation Breaking the Walls,” which unfolded during a 12-month campaign from July 2012 until a major break at Abu Ghraib, the main Iraqi prison, on the western outskirts of the capital, in July 2013. In all, American officials estimate, a few hundred of the escapees have joined the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, several in senior leadership roles. While the group was already gaining strength in this period, an American counterterrorism official said, “The influx of these terrorists, who collectively have decades of battlefield experience, probably has strengthened the group and deepened its leadership bench.” One such escapee was Abu Aisha, who declined to be identified by his full name and is now leading a group of Qaeda fighters on the western edge of Falluja, his hometown, which for nearly six weeks has been held by antigovernment Sunni fighters. With Falluja under siege, the American government has been rushing guns, ammunition and missiles to help the Shiite-dominated Iraqi security forces and allied tribal fighters retake the city, where so many American Marines once fought — and died — nearly 10 years ago. Abu Aisha was a car mechanic before 2003 but found new purpose in fighting the Americans. Many detainees, himself included, he said, spent their time in prison learning the ways of militant Islam, studying the Quran and Shariah law and preparing to return to waging jihad once free. Abu Aisha was originally arrested by the Americans and then released from Camp Bucca, the infamous American prison in southern Iraq, in 2008. He was rearrested by the Iraqis in 2010. “Finally, they put me in Abu Ghraib, and I again met some of the leaders and fighters I knew, including princes from Al Qaeda — Iraqis, Arabs and other nationalities,” he said. “Most of them had been at Bucca as well.” One night last summer, as Abu Aisha sat in his cell waiting, as he did each day, for his date with the executioner, explosions and gunfire erupted and a familiar prison guard opened the doors to his cell and told him to leave immediately. With hundreds of others, Abu Aisha ran through the prison’s corridors until he escaped through a hole that had been blasted through a wall. He hopped into a waiting Kia truck that took him to freedom — and back to the battlefield. Abu Aisha said leaders of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria gave him a choice: leave and fight with them in Syria, or stay and fight in Iraq. “Many of the leaders that I know went to Syria and the jihad there once they fled from Abu Ghraib,” he said in a recent interview. “Other fighters went there after a while because they felt they would be freer in Syria. I decided to stay with my group.” The prison breaks, and the mayhem they helped fuel in Syria, also had the effect of altering the calculus of many Western officials toward the war there. In the beginning, they saw the conflict in the terms of a dictator — President Bashar al-Assad — brutally oppressing his largely peaceful opponents. But after the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria took on an increasingly important role in the fighting there — often battling with more moderate insurgent groups, to the dismay of Al Qaeda, which broke ties with ISIS over the issue — Western powers were even more reluctant to intervene. Osama al-Nujaifi, the speaker of Iraq’s Parliament and the country’s most important Sunni politician, said that the escaped fighters “went to Syria to lead large fighting groups there.” “So, people started thinking, Is Bashar better, or is Qaeda better?” he said. Many Western experts have blamed Turkey’s open-door policy along its southern border with Syria for fostering the growth of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and other extremist groups. But Turkish officials have pushed back, citing intelligence reports that trace the growth of the group to the Iraqi prison breaks. More than 600 prisoners are believed to have escaped in the largest of these sophisticated attacks, facilitated by corrupt prison guards who were easily bought, the officials said. Two prison breaks in particular — the one at Abu Ghraib and the other, in September 2012, in the northern city of Tikrit — have had a significant impact on the group’s overall capacity to undermine Iraqi security and contributed to its expansion in Syria, the officials said. In the Tikrit break, for instance, 47 death row detainees escaped, and they appear to have been instrumental in facilitating the group’s re-energizing and escalation of operations throughout 2013, according to Charles Lister, a visiting scholar at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar. American officials said more than 500 prisoners escaped in the Abu Ghraib operation alone. They also say that “the majority” of the escapees had been originally detained by Iraqi forces, but acknowledged that large numbers — perhaps scores — had been captured during American operations in Iraq before the United States military left the country at the end of 2011. Shaker Waheeb, perhaps the most dangerous Al Qaeda figure to emerge here recently, was one of those captured. Mr. Waheeb was studying computer science at a university in Anbar when the American invasion of Iraq led him to quickly change paths and fight the Americans. He was detained and held in Camp Bucca before being turned over to the Iraqis. He escaped from the prison in Tikrit in late 2012. In Iraq, Mr. Waheeb has become something of a cult figure for up-and-coming jihadis — he has been referred to as the heir apparent to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the brutal Qaeda leader who was killed by American forces in 2006 — and public enemy No. 1 to the broader public. Iraqi officials have claimed more than once to have killed him, but today he is a key figure leading the fighting within Falluja. Last summer, he was seen on a grisly video executing three Shiite truck drivers on the side of a highway in the deserts of Anbar Province and was linked to an attack in which 14 Shiite truck drivers in Iraq were found beheaded. Among the more moderate fighting groups within Syria, the prison breaks have helped stoke conspiracy theories that the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, which has been fighting recently with the groups, is a pawn of the Assad government. While there is no evidence to back that up, some said they believed that the Syrian government — with assistance from the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, which has largely sided with Mr. Assad — helped orchestrate the escapes. “By doing this, exporting more foreign fighters to Syrian territory, the Maliki government did Assad’s regime a favor by supporting his claim of fighting terrorism inside Syria,” said Abduljabbar Osso, a rebel leader in Aleppo who has been fighting with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. Another rebel commander, Lt. Col. Ahmad al-Aboud, said that the moment his people heard about the prison escapes in Iraq, “We knew we would face more trouble after that.” “We have always faced difficulties smuggling light weapons from Iraq to Syria through the Iraq border,” he said, “but it was very easy for ISIS to get full patrols of vehicles, weapons and fighters across to Syria.” The Iraqi government has done little to explain how the prison breaks happened, although most agree that the inmates had help from the inside. Parliament members said that when they tried to investigate the Abu Ghraib break, they were stymied by security forces and top government officials. “Unfortunately, the government did not allow us to even get close to the prison for a week,” said Shwan Muhammed, a member of Parliament and one of the investigators. Not all of the escaped prisoners returned to the fight. Ahmed al-Dulaymi, 31, who fled from Abu Ghraib, is working as a farmer in Diyala Province, another Qaeda stronghold, using fake identification. Like many Sunnis in Iraq, he explains the recent resurgence of Sunni extremism as a reaction to the policies of the Shiite-dominated government, including broad security sweeps that have landed many innocent Sunni men in prison. “Many of my friends were good people, but because of the government’s actions, my friends have become dangerous people and leaders in Al Qaeda,” he said. “Injustice is what gives birth to Al Qaeda.”

The most extreme faction in Syria didn't just spring up naturally—it was purposely built through a series of daring Iraqi prison breaks, the New York Times reports. With demand for fighters high, and the US recently departed, the group now known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria filled its ranks with a series of prison breaks, beginning in July 2012 and culminating in a massive raid on Abu Ghraib a year later. They called the strategy "Operation Breaking the Walls." One inmate freed in the Abu Ghraib raid explained that like many he'd been radicalized in prison, and was freed by a corrupt guard. Once freed, ISIS gave him a choice: Stay and fight in Iraq, or go to Syria. Many leaders chose the latter. "They felt they would be freer" there, he says. The prison break story has fueled the rebel conspiracy theory that ISIS is a pawn of Bashar al-Assad's regime, and that Iraq's Assad-friendly government helped free its fighters. There's no evidence supporting this, and many freed ISIS fighters are fighting Iraq's government, too. But McClatchy has an in-depth piece on moderate rebels' animosity toward ISIS that notes some circumstantial evidence: Assad's forces have largely left ISIS alone, it notes, and ISIS has mostly abducted and tortured Assad opponents. "It was like Syrian intelligence," says one rebel chief who fell into the group's hands.

Apple's "Think different" logo "Think different." was an advertising slogan for Apple, Inc. (then Apple Computer, Inc.) in 1997 created by the Los Angeles office of advertising agency TBWA Chiat/Day.[1] The slogan has been widely taken as a response to IBM's slogan "Think".[2][3][4] It was used in a television commercial, several print advertisements, and a number of TV promos for Apple products. Apple's use of the slogan was discontinued in 2002. Television commercials [ edit ] Significantly shortened versions of the text were used in two television commercials, known as "Crazy Ones", directed by Chiat\Day's Jennifer Golub who also shared the art director credit with Jessica Schulman Edelstein and Yvonne Smith. According to Jobs’s biography, two versions were created before it first aired: one with a voiceover by Richard Dreyfuss and one featuring a voiceover by Steve Jobs.[5] In the morning of the first air date, Jobs decided to go with the Dreyfuss version, stating that it was about Apple, not about himself. It was edited at Venice Beach Editorial, by Dan Bootzin, Chiat\Day's in-house editor,[6] and post-produced by Hunter Conner. The slogan "Think Different" was created by Craig Tanimoto, Art Director at Chiat\Day, who also contributed conceptual design work resulting in the use of iconic portraiture for the campaign. Tanimoto is also credited with opting for "Think Different" rather than the grammatically correct "Think Differently," which was considered but rejected by Lee Clow. The full text of the various versions of this commercial were written by creative director Rob Siltanen and copywriter Ken Segall, along with input from many on the team at the agency and at Apple. The commercial's music was composed by Chip Jenkins for Elias Arts.[7] The one-minute commercial featured black-and-white footage of 17 iconic 20th century personalities. In order of appearance they were: Albert Einstein, Bob Dylan, Martin Luther King, Jr., Richard Branson, John Lennon (with Yoko Ono), Buckminster Fuller, Thomas Edison, Muhammad Ali, Ted Turner, Maria Callas, Mahatma Gandhi, Amelia Earhart, Alfred Hitchcock, Martha Graham, Jim Henson (with Kermit the Frog), Frank Lloyd Wright and Pablo Picasso. The commercial ends with an image of a young girl opening her closed eyes, as if making a wish. The final clip is taken from the All Around The World version of the "Sweet Lullaby" music video, directed by Tarsem Singh; the young girl is Shaan Sahota, Singh's niece.[8] The thirty-second commercial was a shorter version of the previous one, using 11 of the 17 personalities, but closed with Jerry Seinfeld, instead of the young girl. In order of appearance: Albert Einstein, Bob Dylan, Martin Luther King, Jr., John Lennon, Martha Graham, Muhammad Ali, Alfred Hitchcock, Mahatma Gandhi, Jim Henson, Maria Callas, Pablo Picasso, followed by Jerry Seinfeld. This version aired only once, during the series finale of Seinfeld. Another early example of the "Think Different" ads was on February 4, 1998, months before taking the colors out of the logo, where a commercial aired with a snail carrying an Intel Pentium II chip on its back moving slowly, as the Power Macintosh G3 claims that it is twice as fast as Intel's Pentium II Processor.[9] Concept, philosophy, background [ edit ] Apple's famous 1984 commercial was created by advertising agency Chiat/Day. In 1986, CEO John Sculley replaced Chiat/Day with agency BBDO[10]. Under CEO Gil Amelio BBDO pitched to an internal marketing meeting at the then struggling Apple a new brand campaign with the slogan "We're back". Reportedly everyone in the meeting expressed approval with the exception of the recently returned Jobs who said "the slogan was stupid because Apple wasn't back."[11] Jobs then invited three advertising agencies to present new ideas that reflected the philosophy he thought had to be reinforced within the company he co-founded. Chiat/Day was one of them. While Jobs thought the creative concept "brilliant" he originally hated the words of the television commercial, until changing his mind. According to TBWA/Chiat/Day's creative director of the time Rob Siltanen: "Steve was highly involved with the advertising and every facet of Apple’s business. But he was far from the mastermind behind the renowned launch spot...While Steve Jobs didn’t create the advertising concepts, he does deserve an incredible amount of credit. He was fully responsible for ultimately pulling the trigger on the right ad campaign from the right agency, and he used his significant influence to secure talent and rally people like no one I’ve ever seen before. Without Steve Jobs there’s not a shot in hell that a campaign as monstrously big as this one would get even close to flying off the ground...it got an audience that once thought of Apple as semi-cool, but semi-stupid to suddenly think about the brand in a whole new way."[7] Jobs said the following in an interview for PBS' 'One Last Thing' documentary:[12] When you grow up you tend to get told the world is the way it is and your job is just to live your life inside the world. Try not to bash into the walls too much. Try to have a nice family life, have fun, save a little money. That’s a very limited life. Life can be much broader once you discover one simple fact, and that is - everything around you that you call life, was made up by people that were no smarter than you. And you can change it, you can influence it, you can build your own things that other people can use. The minute that you understand that you can poke life and actually something will, you know if you push in, something will pop out the other side, that you can change it, you can mold it. That’s maybe the most important thing. It’s to shake off this erroneous notion that life is there and you’re just gonna live in it, versus embrace it, change it, improve it, make your mark upon it. I think that’s very important and however you learn that, once you learn it, you’ll want to change life and make it better, cause it’s kind of messed up, in a lot of ways. Once you learn that, you’ll never be the same again. The original long version appeared on posters made by Apple. The text was written by Rob Siltanen with participation of Lee Clow and others on his creative team.[13] Print advertisements [ edit ] Print advertisements from the campaign were published in many mainstream magazines such as Newsweek and Time. Their style was predominantly traditional, prominently featuring the company's computers or consumer electronics along with the slogan. There was also another series of print ads which were more focused on brand image than specific products. Those featured a portrait of one historic figure, with a small Apple logo and the words "Think Different" in one corner, with no reference to the company's products. The familiar faces on display included Jimi Hendrix, Richard Clayderman, Miles Davis, Billy Graham, Bryan Adams, Cesar Chavez, John Lennon, Laurence Gartel, Mahatma Gandhi and others. Promotional posters [ edit ] Promotional posters from the campaign were produced in small numbers in 24 x 36 inch sizes. They featured the portrait of one historic figure, with a small Apple logo and the words "Think Different" in one corner. The posters were produced between 1997 and 1998. There were at least 29 different Think Different posters created. The sets were as follows:[citation needed] Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 4 Set 5 (The Directors set, never officially released) In addition, around the year 2000, Apple produced the ten, 11x17 poster set often referred to as "The Educators Set", which was distributed through their Education Channels. Apple sent out boxes (the cover of which is a copy of the 'Crazy Ones' original TD poster) that each contained 3 packs (sealed in plastic) of 10 small/miniature Think Different posters. Educator Set During a special event held on October 14, 1998 at the Flint Center in Cupertino California, a limited edition 11" x 14" softbound book was given to employees and affiliates of Apple Computer, Inc. to commemorate the first year of the ad campaign. The 50 page book contained a foreword by Steve Jobs, the text of the original Think Different ad, and illustrations of many of the posters used in the campaign along with narratives describing each person. Reception and influence [ edit ] Upon release, the "Think Different" Campaign proved to be an enormous success for Apple and TBWA\Chiat\Day. Critically acclaimed, the spot would garner numerous awards and accolades, including the 1998 Emmy Award for Best Commercial and the 2000 Grand Effie Award for most effective campaign in America. In retrospect, the new ad campaign marked the beginning of Apple's re-emergence as a marketing powerhouse. In the years leading up to the ad Apple had lost market share to the Wintel ecosystem which offered lower prices, more software choices, and higher-performance CPUs. Worse for Apple's reputation was the high-profile failure of the Apple Newton, a billion-dollar project that proved to be a technical and commercial dud. The success of the "Think Different" campaign, along with the return of Steve Jobs, bolstered the Apple brand and reestablished the "counter-culture" aura of its earlier days, setting the stage for the immensely successful iMac all-in-one personal computer and later the macOS (previously OS X) operating system. Revivals [ edit ] Product packaging [ edit ] Since late 2009, the box packaging specification sheet for iMac computers has included the following footnote: Macintosh Think different. In previous Macintosh packaging, Apple's website URL was printed below the specifications list. The apparent explanation for this inconspicuous usage is that Apple wished to maintain its trademark registrations on both terms – in most jurisdictions, a company must show continued use of a trademark on its products in order to maintain registration, but neither trademark is widely used in the company's current marketing. (With regards to "Macintosh", Apple's computers are now usually marketed as simply "Mac".) Indeed, this packaging was used as the required specimen of use when Apple filed to re-register "Think Different" as a U.S. trademark in 2009.[14] macOS [ edit ] Apple has continued to include portions of the "Crazy Ones" text as Easter eggs in a range of places in OS X. This includes the high-resolution icon for TextEdit introduced in Leopard, the "All My Files" Finder icon introduced in Lion, the high-resolution icon for Notes in Mountain Lion and Mavericks and on the new Color LCD Display preferences menu introduced for MacBook Pro with Retina Display. Apple Color Emoji [ edit ] Several emoji glyphs in Apple's Apple Color Emoji font contain portions of the text of "Crazy Ones”, including 1F4CB ‘Clipboard’, 1F4C3 ‘Page with Curl’, 1F4C4 ‘Page facing up’ and 1F4D1 ‘Bookmark Tabs’. On at least four separate occasions, the Apple homepage featured images of notable figures not originally part of the campaign alongside the "Think Different" slogan: Similar portraits were also posted without the "Think different" text on at least seven additional occasions: Other media [ edit ] A portion of the text is recited in the trailer for Jobs, a biographical drama film of Steve Jobs' life.[19] Ashton Kutcher, as Jobs, is shown recording the audio for the trailer in the film's final scene. The Richard Dreyfuss audio version is used in the introduction of the first episode of The Crazy Ones,[20] a podcast provided by Ricochet,[21] hosted by Owen Brennan and Patrick Jones.[22] Parodies [ edit ] The Simpsons episode "Mypods and Boomsticks" pokes fun at the slogan, writing it "Think Differently", which is grammatically correct. For Steam's release on Mac OS X, Valve has released a Left 4 Dead–themed advertisement featuring Francis, whose in-game spoken lines involve him hating various things. The given slogan is "I hate different."[23][24] Subsequently, for Team Fortress 2's release on Mac, a trailer was released which concludes with "Think bullets".[25] Aiura parodies this through the use of "Think Crabing" in its opening.[26] In the musical Nerds, which depicts a fictionalized account of the lives of Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, there is a song titled "Think Different" in which Jobs hallucinates an anthropomorphized Oracle dancing with him and urging him to fight back against the Microsoft empire.[27] In the animated show Gravity Falls in episode "A Tale of Two Stans", a poster with the words "Ponder alternatively" and a strawberry colored in a similar fashion as the old Apple logo shows in the background.[28] See also [ edit ] References [ edit ] ||||| He said that he had smoked marijuana with friends or eaten it cooked in brownies, but that the last time he had used the drug was in 1977. “The best way I would describe the effect of the marijuana and the hashish is that it would make me relaxed and creative,” he told investigators. On a form asking him to describe his use of alcohol, Jobs, or one of the investigators, wrote “NA.” Jobs’ mercurial temperament has long been part of his lore, and he’s never tried to deny that he has anger issues. But in the statements he gave the DoD in 1988, although he admitted that he had lost his temper in the past “when things are not going right,” he said he had put this bad behavior behind him. He attributed his angry outbursts to perfectionism, and said he now had his emotions under control. Jobs told the investigators he considered himself an emotionally and mentally stable person, but admitted to previous bouts of depression. Though he had never received medical treatment or counseling for any mental disorder, he said he had once attended a two-month course at the Oregon Feeling Center. “This course primarily delt [sic] with getting in touch with your feelings and understanding your feelings,” he said. A sentence in the written statement says the course was titled “Primal Scream,” but this was later crossed out in the document. Jobs’ initials appear next to the crossed-out text. According to one unidentified woman interviewed for the clearance, Jobs was inclined toward “spiritual sole-searching” [sic] through meditation that he did at home. The documents also detail Jobs’ travel over the years, including a visit he made to the Soviet Union in the summer of 1985 in an effort to market Apple products there. The trip was facilitated by an international lawyer who was based in Paris and later met Jobs and one of his Apple colleagues in the Soviet Union. Jobs told investigators that he had a “feeling” the attorney who accompanied them “worked for the CIA or the KGB,” though he offered no explanation for this. During the trip, which lasted two days, Jobs and his Apple colleague met with a professor from the Academy of Science, whose name is redacted in the document, “to discuss possible marketing of AC’s product.” The fact that Jobs had a Top Secret security clearance was mentioned briefly in the FBI file on Jobs that was released earlier this year. The FBI file primarily contained details from a different background check on Jobs that was done for his appointment in 1991 to the president’s Export Council, under former President George H. W. Bush. But the file also noted that Jobs had held a Top Secret government security clearance while working at Pixar. The file didn’t provide other details, however. The DoD documents released to Wired don’t indicate why Jobs was being given a Top Secret security clearance, but according to Walter Isaacson’s biography of Jobs, the Pixar clearance was required because of contracts Pixar signed with intelligence agencies to use its Pixar Image Computer for rendering information from reconnaissance flights and satellites. The security clearance was conducted in 1988 while Jobs was chairman of the board at NeXT, which he had founded in 1985 after parting ways with Apple, and while he was still owner of Pixar. Jobs had purchased Pixar, when it was known as Graphics Group, from LucasFilm in 1986. In the DoD documents, a note from investigators indicate that they tried to obtain Jobs’ employment records from NeXT going back to September 1985, but the company’s human resources manager told them that because Jobs was founder and chairman of the board of NeXT, “there are no records kept” on him. Investigators didn’t fare much better at Apple. A note says all they got from Jobs’ personnel file there was his name, address, date of birth and Social Security number. Steve Jobs DoD File Pages: 1 2 3 View All

Steve Jobs discovered one definite way to "think different." The mega-mind behind Apple took LSD some 15 times, and it was a "life-changing experience," Jobs revealed on a 1988 security clearance application he filled out for the Department of Defense. "It was a positive life changing experience for me, and I am glad I went through that experience," Jobs said of his several trips from 1972-74. "I would ingest the LSD on a sugar cube or in a hard form of gelatin," he said on the application obtained by Wired. "I would usually take the LSD when I was by myself." Jobs also smoked pot or hash, or ate it cooked into brownies, once or twice a week between 1973 and 1977, he revealed. "The best way I would describe the effect of the marijuana and the hashish is that it would make me relaxed and creative," he said. Jobs' security clearance was required because intelligence agencies were using Pixar's image computer for configuring information gleaned from reconnaissance flights and satellites, according to Walter Isaacson’s biography of Jobs.

By long tradition, most regular appropriations bills are considered by the House of Representatives under the terms of an open rule reported by the House Committee on Rules and adopted by the House (or under terms similar to an open rule). This means that when the bill is brought to the House floor, the number of amendments that can be offered to it and the debate on those amendments are largely unrestricted. In the last decade, however, the House has moved away from this pure open rule tradition and begun to adopt unanimous consent (UC) agreements that comprehensively regulate the consideration of regular appropriations bills shortly after an open rule brings them to the floor. When considering a spending bill under an open rule, the legislation is read by paragraph in the Committee of the Whole. Members are free to propose amendments to each pending paragraph, so long as their amendments comply with the chamber's standing rules. Any first degree amendment offered under an open rule is itself subject to further amendment, and debate is largely unrestricted. By offering a pro forma amendment to "strike the last word," each Member may gain five minutes to speak on each pending paragraph of the bill or amendments to it. Although consideration of regular appropriations bills under an open rule provides a forum that maximizes deliberation, it also means that the time spent considering such measures is uncertain and open to wide variation. Time spent on floor consideration of a given spending bill will depend on how many amendments are offered, and how long Members choose to engage in debate. To provide scheduling predictability and to facilitate progress in a busy chamber, it has become common for the House, following a period of initial consideration of a regular appropriations bill under an open rule, to adopt a UC agreement negotiated by the Appropriations Committee, party leaders, and interested Members that comprehensively regulates further debate and amendment of the legislation. Such UC agreements supplant the open rule, limit the amendments that may be offered to a finite list, restrict debate, and bar certain time-consuming procedures otherwise in order. The practice of bringing up a regular appropriations bill under an open rule, and shortly thereafter replacing the rule with a comprehensive UC agreement structuring further debate and amendment, was largely unseen prior to the 104 th Congress (1995-1996). The practice is now routine. In 2008, only one regular appropriations bill was considered on the House floor and no comprehensive UC agreement was entered into during its consideration. In 2007, however, eight regular appropriations bills that came to the House floor under an open rule were subsequently regulated by such a UC agreement. In 2006, seven of nine regular appropriations bills considered under an open rule were subsequently regulated by such a consent agreement. In 2005, seven out of ten bills brought up under an open rule were. The time between the adoption of an open special rule for a regular appropriation bill and its being supplanted by a comprehensive UC agreement is often short—in most cases, both occur on the same day. In fact, party leaders often notify Members of their intention to craft such a UC agreement even before a bill comes to the House floor. Unanimous consent agreements regulating the further consideration of regular appropriation bills limit the universe of possible amendments as well as the time for considering those amendments. In this way, such UC agreements act in a manner similar to a structured special rule, albeit with an important difference: every Member can have a say in the content of a UC agreement and, in a real sense, dictate its terms. Under an announced policy that is generally strictly adhered to, the Speaker will not normally recognize a Member to propound such a unanimous consent request unless that request has been cleared in advance by the bipartisan floor and committee leadership. Structured special rules, by contrast, are privileged for consideration and adopted at the will of a majority of the House. In short, such UC agreements are largely accepted (and presumably increasingly common) because they provide all parties with something they want—party leaders get increased certainty about the floor schedule, the Appropriations Committee is able to move its bills forward more readily, and Members are permitted to offer the amendments of their choice. Unanimous consent agreements regulating the further consideration of regular appropriations bills in the House have several common features that differ significantly in effect from consideration under an open rule. Such UC agreements routinely: Limit the amendments that can be offered to those listed in the unanimous consent agreement by sponsor and subject, or by amendment number. Occasionally, a UC agreement will give the majority bill manager blanket authority to offer amendments on the subject of funding levels . By contrast, under an open rule, Members may freely offer amendments to each pending paragraph of the bill so long as those amendments comply with House rules and practice. In addition, Members are not required to give notice of their amendments under an open rule. Specify that each amendment may be offered only by the named Member or the Member ' s designee and that those amendments shall be considered as read . By contrast, under an open rule, any Member might conceivably offer any amendment. Ordinarily, amendments that have not been preprinted in the Congressional Record must be read aloud unless their reading is waived by unanimous consent. Forbid division of an amendment in the House or Committee of the Whole. Ordinarily, as a matter of right, any Member may demand that an amendment be divided—and its pieces voted on separately—if the amendment consists of two or more separate, substantiative provisions. Bar second-degree amendments to the amendments. Under an open rule, when an amendment is offered, as many as three other amendments may then be offered: an amendment to the amendment, a substitute for it, and an amendment to the substitute. Permit one pro forma amendment offered by each of the chair and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the Appropriations subcommittee on each amendment. Specify that only the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees may offer pro forma amendments at any point in the reading of the bill . Under an open rule, each Member, not just the floor managers, would be able to "strike the last word," to obtain five minutes to debate each amendment. As has been noted, under an open rule, each Member may offer a pro forma amendment on the pending paragraph of the bill during its reading. Structuring the UC agreement in this way puts control of debate time almost exclusively in the hands of committee leaders instead of rank-and-file Members. Specify the time for debate on each amendment, often 10 minutes equally-divided between a proponent and an opponent, although longer periods may be specified . Under an open rule, the proponent and opponent of an amendment each have a right to five minutes of time, and debate may continue significantly beyond 10 minutes as other Members offer pro forma amendments. A statement that " An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this [UC agreement] if it addresses in whole or in part the object described. " Normally in the Committee of the Whole, a Member would need unanimous consent to modify his or her amendment. Under a structured special rule, such modifications would not be in order at all. This language of the UC agreement allows Members to freely negotiate changes in a given amendment as long as it addresses the subject contemplated, fostering progress on the bill. In order to further expedite consideration, such UC agreements sometimes grant the bill manager blanket authority to package amendments on the list en bloc. In these instances, it is common for the agreement to permit Members to insert remarks on their amendments in the Congressional Record. Other provisions: Although less common, such UC agreements sometimes waive points of order against amendments or deem certain amendments to be automatically adopted. It should be noted that unanimous consent agreements of this type do not provide complete certainty of how long floor consideration of a given spending measure will last, because they do not regulate time spent on every procedural step that may occur, including voting on the amendments themselves; the bill managers "striking the last word" and yielding to other Members for debate; any separate votes requested after the Committee of the Whole rises and reports the bill back to the House; consideration and voting on the motion to recommit; voting on final passage, and any general "slippage" of time. Other procedural events, including, but not limited to, points of order, appeals, quorum calls, and motions to rise, might also extend floor consideration of a given regular appropriations measure and also might add some uncertainty to the proceedings.

Regular appropriations bills have traditionally been considered in the House of Representatives under the terms of open rules, which provide substantial freedom of debate and amendment. It has become common, however, for the House to begin considering a spending bill under such an open rule, then quickly negotiate a comprehensive unanimous consent (UC) agreement establishing more structured terms for debating and amending the measure. Such UC agreements seek to strike a balance between the needs of party and committee leaders for efficiency and scheduling predictability, and the desires of rank-and-file Members to debate and freely amend legislation funding the operations of the federal government.

California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (pictured) has won national attention for speaking out against sexual harassment, and was one of hundreds of Sacramento women who signed an October letter with the hashtag #WeSaidEnough protesting harassment. | Rich Pedroncelli/AP Photo ‘Spin the bottle’ and a kegerator: #MeToo movement lawmaker faces new sexual misconduct allegations Staffers say California legislator presided over 'toxic' office. SAN FRANCISCO — New misconduct allegations have been leveled against California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia — the high-profile #MeToo movement activist under investigation herself for alleged sexual harassment — including a claim that Garcia urged staffers to play “spin the bottle” after a political fundraiser. David John Kernick has filed a formal complaint with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing claiming he was dismissed from his job in Garcia’s district office for questioning the propriety of asking staffers to play the game. Story Continued Below Kernick, 38, who worked for the assemblywoman for five months in 2014, described to POLITICO an evening of heavy drinking in which Garcia ended up sitting on a hotel room floor with about half-dozen people — including her staffers and at least one male friend — and prompted them to play a game that results in participants kissing each other. “It was definitely uncomfortable,’’ said Kernick, adding that the assemblywoman’s suggestion was met with discomfort and then ignored. “But I realized it’s different for a man than for a woman. … You know it’s inappropriate, but at the same time you may wonder, ‘How many women do you work for that act like that?’ You think … ’Maybe she’s just really cool.’’’ “It muddies the waters,” he said. California Playbook newsletter Our must-read briefing on politics and government in the Golden State. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. Garcia has won national attention for speaking out against sexual harassment, and was one of hundreds of Sacramento women who signed an October letter with the hashtag #WeSaidEnough protesting harassment. When Time magazine announced that “Silence Breakers” who spoke out against sexual misconduct were its Persons of the Year, Garcia’s photo appeared with the story. But the Democratic assemblywoman from Bell Gardens near Los Angeles is now on an unpaid, voluntary leave of absence after POLITICO reported in early February she is facing a legislative investigation over allegations of sexual harassment and groping connected to a separate incident. Last week, prior to filing his complaint, Kernick and three other ex-staffers issued an open letter to Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon charging that Garcia, a powerful Democratic lawmaker who until recently headed the legislative Women’s Caucus, presided over a “toxic" workplace where activities included regular heavy drinking with staffers, sexually charged meetings and raunchy conversations highlighting intimate details of her sex life. The three other former Garcia staffers have remained anonymous. Two of them spoke to POLITICO on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals. In separate interviews, the former Garcia staffers said they left her office, in part, because of regular pressure to accompany their boss to alcohol-fueled evening events. “It was a power imbalance,’’ one staffer said in an interview last week. “You’re telling me, ‘We’re going to go to a happy hour,’ and I don’t want to do that. It was something that was central — ‘We’re going to go out’ … and I was, ‘I don’t want to hang out with you, I want to go home.’” The ex-staffer said employees worried about retribution from the boss if they didn’t go along, and that signing the public letter was “the opportunity to be heard” about an unhealthy workplace that often included “vulgar” conversations related to Garcia’s personal sexual experiences. “It wasn’t a two-way street. It was usually just us listening,’’ she said. “I thought it was weird. It came off as sort of bragging.” The second staffer, who worked in Garcia’s district office, said he recalled that the office furnishings included a refrigerator specifically designed to store wine bottles. In addition to being asked to attend many late-night events with the assemblywoman at which alcohol flowed freely, the second staffer said there would be “team-building things like mimosas” in the office during work hours. A Sacramento-based lobbyist who spoke to POLITICO corroborated their accounts of a free-wheeling and alcohol-fueled workplace. The industry lobbyist said he was surprised last year when, during a late-morning policy meeting in Garcia’s Capitol office, the assemblywoman poured beer from a kegerator — a refrigerator with a beer tap on top — located in her office . She offered the brew in red Solo cups to the group of lobbyists, even though it was “sometime between 11 a.m. and noon ... a little early,’’ the lobbyist said. While drinking is not uncommon during long days and nights of budget negotiations, he said, being offered alcohol by a legislator during morning business hours in her office was highly unusual, especially during “non-deadline” days. Garcia’s spokeswoman Teala Schaff, asked to comment on the presence of the beer tap in the assemblywoman’s office, wrote via email that “the assemblymember is on voluntary, unpaid leave until the investigation into the claim has concluded. As an employee of [the] Assembly Rules [Committee], I am not able to answer your questions.” She referred questions to the Assembly speaker’s office. The assemblywoman, who also chairs the powerful Natural Resources Committee, issued an initial statement after the POLITICO report of a legislative investigation that she had “zero recollection” of the alleged groping incident, but she later stressed she will fully cooperate with any Assembly investigations. Last week, Garcia did not specifically address the new allegations but said in a Facebook post she will comply with any investigation and “I will address each of these issues individually after the investigations into these allegations are closed.” But she also pushed back on the new accusations, saying “I am confident that I consistently treated my staff fairly and respectfully.’’ She added, “in a fast-paced legislative office, not everyone is the right fit for every position, and I do understand how a normal employment decision could be misinterpreted.” Veteran civil rights attorney Dan Gilleon, who presented the former staffers’ open letter to the speaker’s office, said they were concerned that Garcia was “acting like a hero of the #MeToo movement” and assuming a public profile “that wasn’t anywhere near the truth.” Kernick said he’s coming forward to raise concerns about a woman whom he says has become an icon of the #MeToo movement, but also to prove that in Sacramento, “powerful women can act the same way as powerful men.” The assemblywoman has been shielded from criticism, Kernick said, while overseeing an office where treatment was often “malevolent," and in which alcohol use fueled hostility and mistreatment of staffers. A former Marine, he believes he was dismissed from the office because, as an older, more experienced staffer, he wasn’t as malleable and accepting as younger staffers were of the stressful, and often “malicious,” behavior within the office. “Her drinking was a common thing,’’ he said. “We knew if we were going out, there would be drinking.” Kernick’s complaint, filed Saturday and obtained by POLITICO, charges that his termination by the assemblywoman was a direct result of his resistance to the inappropriate behavior by the lawmaker. The filing states that Garcia “was seemingly not critical of [Kernick’s] work until after he questioned the appropriateness of her suggestion that after a fundraiser at a whiskey bar that Claimant sit on the floor of her hotel room and play spin the bottle.” The complaint alleges that “shortly after protesting this sexual harassment,” Garcia disciplined Kernick “with a write up for insubordination.” Two days later, according to the complaint, “Garcia fired him.” Attorney Gilleon told POLITICO that Garcia’s actions “crossed the line and falls into the category of sexual harassment,’’ and said that with his actions, Kernick is one of the brave males “who’s come forward and now formally said, “#MeToo.” “I hope it encourages others who are afraid” of retaliation in the state Capitol, he said. Gilleon said the state could launch an investigation into the formal complaint, and Kernick now has a year in which to file a lawsuit. Asked for comment regarding the complaint filed Saturday, Schaff said, “Personal matters are confidential and handled via Assembly Rules. Even if the member was not on voluntary leave from her position with the Assembly she would be unable to respond.” Kevin Liao, a spokesman for Speaker Rendon, said, “We have not yet reviewed the complaint, and as a result, cannot comment further at this time.” The new allegations leveled at Garcia by staffers last week prompted Delaine Eastin, a former state superintendent of public instruction and the leading Democratic woman in the California governor’s race, to say that the assemblywoman should prepare to step down. “The old line is the kettle shouldn’t call the pot black,’’ Eastin said at a forum last week. “If you say this is my value, you ought to live up to the value you set. “She should look in the mirror and say, “I called on these other men to resign. Should I?' … That’s where we are in danger right now. Integrity is really an important part of what we do here.” ||||| A former employee of Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia filed a complaint with the state on Saturday, seeking to sue the Bell Gardens Democrat for allegedly firing him after he refused to play “spin the bottle” with her. In the complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which was posted online Sunday by his lawyer, J. David Kernick of San Diego wrote that during his time as a field representative in 2014, Garcia was “very disparaging to the staff and others, used vulgar language, discussed topics inappropriate for the workplace and showed herself to be very vindictive in nature.” It is the second accusation of sexual misconduct against Garcia, who is currently on a voluntary, unpaid leave of absence while the Assembly investigates claims that she drunkenly groped a former legislative staff member. In addition, a lawyer on Wednesday released a list of other allegations from four former employees in Garcia’s office who said they wished to remain anonymous. Kernick could not immediately be reached Sunday for comment about his complaint. In his complaint, he wrote that Garcia was “seemingly not critical” of his work until “after he questioned the appropriateness of her suggestion that after a fundraiser at a whiskey bar” they “sit on the floor of her hotel room and play spin the bottle.” SIGN UP Help us deliver journalism that makes a difference in our community. Our journalism takes a lot of time, effort, and hard work to produce. If you read and enjoy our journalism, please consider subscribing today. SUBSCRIBE TODAY He was disciplined with a “write up for insubordination,” Kernick wrote, and then fired two days later. Garcia used this write-up to prevent him from finding further work in politics, he added. Tim Reardon, who served as Garcia’s chief of staff in 2014, called the complaint a “complete falsehood.” He said Kernick was warned for not doing his job, was encouraged to do better and was fired when his work did not improve. “If Mr. Kernick wants to talk about his time working there, then he ought to open up his own personnel records and let people see what was written in there,” Reardon said. He said he never received any formal or informal complaints about Garcia or the office environment during his time as chief of staff. He believes the allegations are part of a political attack against Garcia, though he does not know who is behind it. “It’s like a malicious, really bizarre alternate universe built on a lot of innuendo and lies solely to destroy to character of Assemblywoman Garcia,” Reardon said. “That’s all that I can see.” Another former staff member shared with The Bee a voicemail they received last week from a private investigator, asking to discuss their time working for Garcia. A message left for the investigator by The Bee on Sunday was not returned. Earlier this week, four anonymous former Garcia staffers submitted a complaint to the Assembly through the same attorney as Kernick, describing a “toxic environment” of heavy drinking and graphic sexual discussions in her office. It also included at least one allegation of illegal activity: that Garcia sometimes directed her staff to perform campaign work, such as fundraising and donation request calls, on Assembly time. SHARE COPY LINK Two lawmakers have resigned and one is on leave at the California Capitol over allegations of improper conduct toward women at the California Capitol. At least one other is under investigation, while the Legislature decides what the next steps are. Emily ZentnerThe Sacramento Bee During a press conference at the Capitol on Wednesday, San Diego attorney Dan Gilleon said his clients wanted to expose Garcia’s outspoken advocacy against sexual harassment at the Capitol as “phony.” “She’s probably going to have to, at some point, acknowledge that she has some issues,” he said. The anonymous letter describes Garcia pressuring staff to drink with her, frequently sharing details about her sex life, constantly reminding staff members that they were “replaceable,” asking them to run personal errands such as taking care of her dogs and pressuring them to assist with campaigns. In a Facebook post on Wednesday, Garcia wrote that she would “address each of these issues individually after the investigations into these allegations are closed.” “However, in response to (the) allegations I will add that in order for legislators to accomplish all we want for the people of our districts and the people of California, we need talented staff who feel empowered to do their work,” she wrote. “That is the environment I strive for in my office and I am confident I have consistently treated my staff fairly and respectfully. In a fast-paced legislative office, not everyone is the right fit for every position, and I do understand how a normal employment decision could be misinterpreted by the individual involved in that decision.” Gilleon said his clients were hesitant to come forward for fear of reprisal. He said the former staff members had not brought their concerns about her behavior to Garcia or the Assembly before, but the groping allegations that surfaced last week gave them the chance they’ve been waiting for. Daniel Fierro, who now operates a political communications firm in Cerritos, said Garcia cornered him at a legislative softball game in 2014, squeezed his butt and attempted to grab his crotch. He said it was hypocritical of Garcia to put herself at the forefront of the Capitol’s anti-sexual harassment movement, and he came forward because he heard that others may have had similar experiences with her. Garcia, who called on several male colleagues to step down over sexual misconduct allegations last fall, has said she is “certain I did not engage in the behavior I am accused of.”

A former aide is suing California assemblywoman and #MeToo advocate Cristina Garcia, claiming the Democrat fired him for not wanting to play "spin the bottle" in her hotel room after a night of heavy drinking at a fundraiser in 2014. David John Kernick says he was written up for insubordination the day after he called the suggestion inappropriate and was fired two days later, Sacramento Bee reports. But Tim Reardon, who was Garcia's chief of staff in 2014, says Kernick was fired after being warned for not doing his job. The allegations against Garcia are "like a malicious, really bizarre alternate universe built on a lot of innuendo and lies solely to destroy [the] character of Assemblywoman Garcia," he says. Garcia, who chaired the Legislative Women's Caucus, is already on a voluntary, unpaid leave of absence amid other allegations of sexual misconduct, including groping. Three other former Garcia staffers—who joined Kernick in signing an open letter denouncing the "toxic" atmosphere in her office—tell Politico that working for Garcia included being pressured to join her at events where she drank heavily, and listening to her talk extensively about her sex life. "It wasn't a two-way street. It was usually just us listening," one female former staffer says. "I thought it was weird. It came off as sort of bragging." A lobbyist says Garcia's office contained a "keginator"—a fridge that dispenses draft beer—and she offered lobbyists cups of beer during a late-morning meeting.

Congress relies on a variety of mechanisms, instruments, and procedures to protect classified national security and other sensitive information in its custody. Such information—most of which comes from the executive branch—can be hard to obtain. But accessibility to it is seen as necessary for the legislature to carry out its constitutional responsibilities, especially overseeing the executive and legislating public policy. The safeguards surrounding information deal with who is eligible for access, what information is made available and in what form, where and when it can be accessed, and how and in what circumstances or contexts it can be used afterwards. The relevant requirements and mechanisms include House and Senate security offices responsible for setting and implementing standards for safeguarding classified information; committee rules determining access to committee-held classified information, including what is made available and to whom, as well as how and under what conditions; committee and certain chamber rules governing how classified information can be used afterwards, in what contexts and forums, and under what conditions; establishment of special congressional groups to receive highly sensitive classified information; a secrecy oath required for all Members and employees of the House and several of its committees; security clearances and nondisclosure agreements for staff; and formal procedures for investigating suspected security violations. Public laws, House and Senate rules, and committee rules—as well as custom and practice, including informal agreements between legislators and executive officials—constitute the bases for these requirements and arrangements. Some of these have evolved over time, in response to changing conditions and needs of both the legislative and executive branches. The two chambers have approached their security program differently, although each now has an office of security and a set of requirements, instructions, and guidelines regarding the protection of classified and other controlled information. The Senate established an Office of Senate Security in 1987, the result of a bipartisan effort over two Congresses. It is charged with consolidating information and personnel security. Located in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, the Security Office sets and implements uniform standards for handling and safeguarding classified and other sensitive information in the Senate's possession. The Security Office's standards, procedures, and requirements—detailed in its Senate Security Manual , first issued in 1988—"are binding upon all employees of the Senate." These cover committee and Member office staff and officers of the Senate as well as consultants and contract personnel—but not Members themselves. The regulations extend to a wide range of matters on safeguarding classified information: physical security requirements; procedures for storing materials; mechanisms for protecting communications equipment; security clearances and nondisclosure agreements for all Senate staff needing access; and follow-up investigations of suspected security violations by employees. In 2005, the House put its own security office in place—the Office of House Security (OHS)—under the jurisdiction of the House Sergeant at Arms, following approval of the chamber's Committee on House Administration. The office, similar to the Senate predecessor, is charged with developing an Operations Security Program for the House. Its responsibilities and jurisdiction encompass processing security clearances for staff, handling and storing classified information, managing a counterintelligence program for the House, and coordinating security breach investigations. Unlike its Senate counterpart, however, the House Office of Security has not issued an official security manual. Nonetheless, OHS provides relevant services, instructions, and forms for security clearances and other safeguards to protect classified information. Prior to the establishment of OHS, the chamber had relied on individual committee and Member offices to set requirements following chamber and committee rules, guidelines in internal office procedural manuals, and custom. Although there is no across-the-board, comprehensive requirement for all legislative branch staff, they are required to have security clearances and written nondisclosure agreements to gain access to classified information. These exist through various mechanisms, which apply to different employee categories: Each panel spells out its requirements in its rules to cover access. In addition, the Office of Senate Security and Office of House Security both require employees needing access to classified information to have security clearances and nondisclosure agreements in order to be eligible for access to classified national security information. A provision in the Senate Security Manual along these lines stipulates that "Senators and Committee Chairmen must determine which positions on their staffs require a security clearance. Clearances will only be granted to employees whose assignments require access to classified information." Individual Member offices may on their own require both clearances and nondisclosure agreements for staff to be eligible for access. Even so, requirements and limitations are directed by each chamber's office of security. A limit may also be imposed on the number of staff with clearances in any individual Member office. Along with this, congressional offices may on their own require a need-to-know for individual staffers seeking access to certain classified information. Security clearance requirements are included in the personnel manuals, job and position descriptions, or vacancy announcements of Congress's support agencies: Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congressional Research Service (CRS) as well as the Library of Congress (LOC), and Government Accountability Office (GAO). The House and Senate differ with regard to secrecy oaths for Members and staff. Neither the full Senate nor any Senate panel apparently imposes a secrecy oath or affirmation on its Members or employees. The House, by comparison, has adopted such special procedures. Beginning with the 104 th Congress, the House has required a secrecy oath (taken once per Congress) for each Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, and employee of the chamber. Before any such person may have access to classified information, he or she must solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose any classified information received in the course of my service with the House of Representatives, except as authorized by the House of Representatives or in accordance with its Rules. Previously, a similar oath was required only for Members and staff of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. This requirement had been added in the 102 nd Congress as part of the select committee's internal rules, following abortive attempts to establish it in public law. The oath is still in effect for the panel's Members and staff: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose or cause to be disclosed any classified information received in the course of my service on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, except when authorized to do so by the Committee or the House of Representatives. At least one other panel has adopted a similar measure. The House Committee on Homeland Security requires an oath or affirmation from each committee Member or staff seeking access to classified information, modeled after the one adopted by the House Intelligence Committee. Procedures controlling access to classified information held by congressional offices exist throughout Congress. Although these differ, committee and chamber rules set conditions and requirements for sharing such information with other panels, Members, and staff. This includes determining: who may attend a panel's executive (or secret) session hearings; who is eligible for access to a committee's classified holdings; what information may be made available to all Members across-the-board; and if so, how, to what extent, and in what form; what specific committee-held information is to be made available to non-committee Members seeking access; a panel's requirements and conditions for access may depend on what the information covers (the specific subject matter and a need-to-know), to what extent it may be made available (all or only a part of it), in what form (e.g., the actual documents, a summary account, or a briefing from a committee Member or staff), under what restrictions (with or without staff in attendance or taking notes), or where (in the committee offices, most likely, or in a secure area elsewhere); and how and in what other forums (e.g., with another congressional panel or on the floor of the chamber) may the information be used and under what restrictions. The most exacting requirements along these lines have been developed by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; its rules are based on the committee's 1977 establishing authority and reinforced by intelligence oversight provisions in public law, such as the 1991 Intelligence Authorization Act. The panel's controls apply to select committee Members sharing classified information outside the committee itself as well as to non-committee Representatives seeking access to the panel's holdings. In the latter case, an individual requester must go through a multi-stage process to obtain access. Consequently, it is possible for a non-committee Member to be denied attendance at its executive sessions or access to its classified holdings; given only a briefing on it; granted partial access; or allowed full access. The select committee also sets rules on whether the Member may be accompanied by a cleared staffer or may take notes. When the House Select Committee on Intelligence releases classified information to another panel or non-member, moreover, the recipient must comply with the same rules and procedures that govern the intelligence committee's control and disclosure requirements. By comparison, rules of the House Armed Services Committee are to "ensure access to information [classified at Secret or higher] by any member of the Committee or any other Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner of the House of Representatives … who has requested the opportunity to review such material." Executive branch notification about intelligence activities, including presidential findings regarding covert operations, is usually provided directly to the House and Senate select committees on intelligence. These full panels, however, may be bypassed—based on the urgency of a situation, to meet extraordinary circumstances affecting the vital interests of the United States, or to protect the extremely sensitive nature of the information—in favor of notification to the so-called "Gang of Eight" or "Gang of Four." Notification about covert operations, in certain situations, is submitted to the statute-based "Gang of Eight," composed of the Speaker and minority leader of the House and chairman and ranking minority Member of its intelligence committee and the majority and minority leaders of the Senate and chairman and vice chairman of its intelligence committee. A separate so-called "Gang of Four" has also come into existence to receive briefings on particularly sensitive intelligence activities (other than covert operations), which, if disclosed, might reveal intelligence sources and methods. This non-statutory body is composed of the chairs and ranking minority Members of the House and Senate select committees on intelligence. On occasion, its meetings are attended by their staff directors. A controversy had erupted recently, however, over the existing arrangements, when the intelligence committees are not the direct and immediate recipients of these presidential findings or executive briefings. The dispute arose, in part, because the members of either "Gang" had not been permitted to share the information with the full intelligence committee in their respective chamber; and they may have been delayed or prevented from even informing their panel that a notification or briefing had occurred. The primary response by Congress was to modify the notification procedures—via the Intelligence Authorization Act of FY2010—allowing for more communication between the members of the "Gangs" and their respective select committees on intelligence. Such new congressional notification procedures, along with several other proposed changes in the law, however, were of "serious concern to the Intelligence Community," prompting a threatened presidential veto. (A veto did not materialize.) The executive's opposition had been based on the changes' perceived adverse impact on "the long tradition of comity between the branches regarding intelligence matters." The Senate Office of Security and the House counterpart are charged with investigating or coordinating investigations of suspected security violations by employees. In addition, investigations by the House and Senate Ethics Committees of suspected breaches of security are authorized by each chamber's rules, directly and indirectly. The Senate Ethics Committee, importantly, has the broad duty to "receive complaints and investigate allegations of improper conduct which may reflect upon the Senate, violations of law, violations of the Senate Code of Official Conduct, and violations of rules and regulations of the Senate." The panel is also directed "to investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence information [from the Senate Intelligence Committee] by a Member, officer or employee of the Senate." The House, in creating its Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, issued similar instructions. H.Res. 658 ordered the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to "investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence or intelligence-related information [from the House Intelligence Committee] by a Member, officer, or employee of the House." In addition to the foregoing, each chamber and its committees subscribe to other measures designed to protect classified and controlled information. Some of these—derived from the House and Senate Offices of Security or such committees as the House and Senate select committees on intelligence—focus on the physical security of documents and facilities, while others affect individual conduct. These include stationing U.S. Capitol Police officers at committee sites; conducting Technical Security Countermeasures sweeps of offices and facilities to detect surveillance devices (e.g., bugs) and technical security weaknesses; safeguarding the storage and use of controlled information; setting up procedures to acknowledge the receipt of specific classified information and its dissemination to particular individuals; conducting education and training programs; and reporting foreign travel and foreign national contact. A variety of proposals—coming from congressional bodies, government commissions, and other groups—have called for changes in the procedures for handling and safeguarding classified information in the custody of Congress. These plans, some of which might be controversial or costly, focus on setting uniform standards for congressional offices and employees and heightening access eligibility requirements. This would mark a significant and unprecedented departure from the past. Members of Congress (as with the President and Vice President, Justices of the Supreme Court, or other federal court judges) have never been required to hold security clearances. Most of the proposals along this line appeared in the late 1980s, following charges and countercharges between the executive and legislative branches over unauthorized disclosure of classified information. A more recent bill, introduced in 2006, would have required a security clearance for Members serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and on the Subcommittee on Defense of the House Appropriations Committee. The resolution, however, did not specify which entity (in the legislative or executive branch) would conduct the background investigation or which officer (in Congress or in the executive) would adjudicate the clearances of Members. The broad mandate for such clearances could be applied to four different groups: (1) all Senators and Representatives, thus, in effect, becoming a condition for serving in Congress; (2) only Members seeking access to classified information, including those on the panels receiving it; (3) only Members on committees which receive classified information; or (4) only those seeking access to classified information held by panels where they are not members. Under a security clearance requirement, background investigations might be conducted by an executive branch agency, such as the Office of Personnel Management or Federal Bureau of Investigation; by a legislative branch entity, such as the House or Senate Office of Security, or the Government Accountability Office; or possibly by a private investigative firm under contract. Possible adjudicators—that is, the officials who would judge, based on the background investigation, whether applicants would be "trustworthy" and, therefore, eligible for access to classified information—could extend to the majority or minority leaders, a special panel in each chamber, a chamber officer, or even an executive branch officer, if Congress so directed. The main goals behind this proposed change are to tighten and make uniform standards governing eligibility for access for Members. Proponents maintain that it would help safeguard classified information by ensuring access only by Members deemed "trustworthy" and, thereby, limit the possibility of leaks and inadvertent disclosures. In addition, the clearance process itself might make recipients more conscious of and conscientious about the need to safeguard this information as well as the significance attached to it. As a corollary, supporters might argue that mandating a clearance to serve on a panel possessing classified information could increase its members' appreciation of the information's importance and its protection's priority. This, in turn, might help the committee members gain the access to information that the executive is otherwise reluctant to share and improve comity between the branches. Opponents, by contrast, contend that security clearance requirements would compromise the independence of the legislature if an executive branch agency conducted the background investigation, had access to the information it generated, or adjudicated the clearance. Even if the process were fully under legislative control, concerns might arise over a number of matters: its fairness, impartiality, objectivity, and correctness (if determined by an inexperienced person); the effects of a negative judgment on a Member, both inside and outside Congress; and the availability of information gathered in the investigation—which may not be accurate or substantiated—to other Members or to another body, such as the chamber's ethics committee or Justice Department, if it is seen as incriminating in matters of ethics or criminality. Opponents might also contend that adding this new criterion could have an adverse impact on individual Members, the full legislature, and the legislative process in other ways. It might impose an unnecessary, unprecedented, and unique (among elected federal officials and members of the federal judiciary) demand on legislators; create two classes of legislators, those with or without a clearance; affect current requirements for non-Member access to holdings of committees whose own members might need clearances; possibly jeopardize participation by Members without clearances in floor or committee proceedings (even secret sessions); and inordinately slow down the legislative process, while background investigations, adjudications, and appeals connected with security clearances of Members are conducted. This proposal would require a secrecy oath for Senators and staffers, similar to the current requirement for their House counterparts. An earlier attempt to mandate such an oath for all Members and employees of both chambers of Congress seeking access to classified information arose in 1993, but it was unsuccessful. If approved, it would have prohibited intelligence entities from providing classified information to Members of Congress and their staff, as well as officers and employees of the executive branch, unless the recipients had signed a nondisclosure agreement. Each would have to pledge that he or she "will not willfully directly or indirectly disclose to any unauthorized person any classified information"—and the oath had been published in the Congressional Record . This demand might make it easier to detect and investigate possible misconduct instigated for financial reasons. And many staff with high-level clearances may already file financial disclosure statements, because of their employment rank or salary level; consequently, few new costs would be added. Nonetheless, objections might arise because the proposal would impose yet another burden on staff and result in additional record-keeping and costs. This requirement's effectiveness in preventing leaks or espionage might also be questioned by opponents. Under such proposals, drug tests or polygraph examinations could be imposed in several different circumstances: as a condition of employment for all personnel in offices holding classified information, only on staff seeking access to such information, or for both employment and access. Objections have been expressed to such tests, especially as a pre-condition of employment, however, because of their costs and questioned reliability and validity.

The protection of classified national security and other controlled information is of concern not only to the executive branch—which, for the most part, determines what information is classified and controlled—but also to Congress. The legislature uses such information to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities, particularly overseeing the executive, appropriating funds, and legislating public policy. Congress has established numerous mechanisms to safeguard controlled information in its custody, although these arrangements have varied over time, between the two chambers, and among offices in each. Both chambers, for instance, have created offices of security to consolidate relevant responsibilities; but these were established nearly two decades apart. Other differences exist at the committee level, regarding the availability and use of information in committees' custody. Proposals for change, some of which are controversial and could be costly, usually seek to set uniform standards or heighten requirements for access. This report will be updated as conditions require.

Pressure to reduce the federal budget deficit required Congress to consider reductions in spending on USDA programs. The 109 th Congress has addressed USDA spending levels on two fronts: in budget reconciliation and in the annual agriculture appropriations bill. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-171 , enacted February 8, 2006) contains net reductions in USDA mandatory spending of $2.7 billion over five years. Nearly half of this reduction was achieved through a change in the timing of farm commodity payments, and most of the balance consists of cuts to conservation, rural development, and research spending. Separately, the full House has passed and the Senate Appropriations Committee has reported their respective versions of the FY2007 Agriculture appropriations bill ( H.R. 5384 ), which will provide annual funding for nearly all USDA agencies and programs. (See CRS Report RS22086, Agriculture and FY2006 Budget Reconciliation , by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report RL33412, Agriculture and Related Agencies: FY2007 Appropriations , coordinated by [author name scrubbed].) Several major weather events in 2005 and 2006, particularly Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and a widespread drought, have caused the 109 th Congress to consider emergency disaster assistance for farmers this year. In response to the 2005 hurricanes, Congress so far has provided about $1.6 billion in agricultural assistance in two emergency supplemental acts ( P.L. 109-148 and P.L. 109-234 ). To date, Congress has not authorized any emergency crop or livestock payments for 2005 or 2006 production losses outside of the Gulf states. However, the Senate-reported version of the FY2006 agriculture appropriations bill ( H.R. 5384 ) contains $4.0 billion in various forms of farm assistance, including payments for major crop and livestock losses caused by any 2005 disaster. Similar provisions for non-hurricane states were contained in the Senate-passed version of an FY2006 supplemental bill ( H.R. 4939 ), but were deleted in conference because of a threatened Administration veto of the measure. (See CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance , by [author name scrubbed].) Farm income and price support programs are dictated primarily by Title I of the 2002 farm bill ( P.L. 107-171 ), which expires in 2007. The House and Senate Agriculture Committee are conducting field hearings this year, with more intensive deliberations and markup expected in both committees in 2007. At issue is whether Congress will extend the current farm support policy, or if the pressures of tight federal spending constraints, concerns about the distribution of farm program benefits, and the threat of potential World Trade Organization (WTO) challenges to farm price and income support spending will compel Congress to consider significant changes to existing farm policy. (See CRS Report RL33037, Previewing a 2007 Farm Bill , coordinated by [author name scrubbed] , and CRS Report RL34594, Farm Commodity Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill , by [author name scrubbed].) Most crop payments are subject to annual per-person limits. Past legislative efforts to reduce the maximum amount of payments that producers can receive have been thwarted by strong opposition from southern cotton and rice growers. In the 109 th Congress, S. 385 and H.R. 1590 would reduce payment limits to a total of $250,000 and count commodity certificates and loan forfeiture toward the limits. A Senate floor amendment to add payment limits to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-171 ) failed by a procedural vote of 46-53. The Administration's FY2007 budget request contains a legislative proposal that would tighten crop payment limits. (See CRS Report RL34594, Farm Commodity Programs in the 2008 Farm Bill , by [author name scrubbed].) The Milk Income Loss Contract (MILC) program provides payments to dairy farmers when farm milk prices are below a specified target level. A provision in the FY2006 budget reconciliation act ( P.L. 109-171 ) extended MILC program authority for two years, through September 30, 2007, but prohibits any MILC payments beyond August 31, 2007. Consequently, under current budget rules, the program will have no baseline budget spending allocated to it beyond its expiration date. A provision in the House-reported version of the FY2007 Agriculture appropriations bill ( H.R. 5384 ) would have allowed payments in September 2007 and preserved the program's budget baseline for the next farm bill debate in 2007. Because of its budget implications, the provision was deleted on the House floor. Separately, Congress also completed action on a measure ( P.L. 109-215 , S. 2120 ) that requires the regulation of a certain large dairy operation in the West that was previously exempt from paying federally mandated minimum farm milk prices. (See CRS Report RL34036, Dairy Policy and the 2008 Farm Bill , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].) In March 2005, a WTO appellate panel ruled against the United States in a dispute settlement case brought by Brazil, stating that elements of the U.S. cotton program are not consistent with U.S. trade commitments. In response, Congress included a provision in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-171 ) authorizing the elimination of the Step-2 cotton program on August 1, 2006. Following the indefinite suspension of the WTO Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations in July 2006, Brazil has pressed for further reductions in U.S. cotton support in response to the panel ruling. On September 28, 2006, the WTO established a compliance panel in response to a request by Brazil to determine whether current U.S. actions are sufficient to comply with the original WTO rulings and recommendations. As a result, additional permanent modifications to U.S. farm programs may still be needed to fully comply with the "actionable subsidies" portion of the WTO ruling. Such changes ultimately would be decided by Congress, most likely in the context of the 2007 farm bill. (See CRS Report RS22187, Brazil ' s WTO Case Against the U.S. Cotton Program: A Brief Overview , by [author name scrubbed].) Spending for conservation programs, which help producers protect and improve natural resources on some farmed land and retire other land from production, have grown rapidly since the 2002 farm bill, reaching a total of more than $5.2 billion in FY2005. This growth in spending reflects the expanded reach of conservation programs, which now involve many more landowners and types of rural lands. Budget pressures forced the 109 th Congress to weigh the benefits of these programs against growing costs. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-171 ) reduced spending on several mandatory conservation programs by a combined $934 million over five years. Another topic that continues to attract congressional interest is implementation of the Conservation Security Program, enacted in 2002. Some stakeholders have questioned why USDA has implemented the program in only a few watersheds, and why Congress has limited funding even though the program was enacted as a true entitlement. The environmental, conservation, and agriculture communities have started to identify conservation policy options that might be considered in the next farm bill. The House and Senate Agriculture Committees have started to examine selected conservation issues in recent hearings. (See CRS Report RL33556, Soil and Water Conservation: An Overview , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].) Although not as energy-intensive as some industries, agriculture is a major consumer of energy—directly, as fuel or electricity, and indirectly, as fertilizers and chemicals. In early September 2005, energy prices jumped to record levels in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. By raising the overall price structure of production agriculture, sustained high energy prices could result in significantly lower farm and rural incomes in 2006, and are generating considerable concern about longer-term impacts on farm profitability. Agriculture also is viewed as a potentially important producer of renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel, although farm-based energy production remains small relative to total U.S. energy needs. The energy bill ( P.L. 109-58 ) enacted in July 2005 includes a renewable fuels standard (RFS) for biofuels that grows from 4 billion gallons in 2006 to 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. The RFS, along with tax credit incentives, is expected to encourage significant increases in U.S. ethanol production. (See CRS Report RL32667, Federal Management and Protection of Paleontological (Fossil) Resources Located on Federal Lands: Current Status and Legal Issues , by [author name scrubbed] (pdf); and CRS Report RL32712, Agriculture-Based Renewable Energy Production , by [author name scrubbed].) U.S. trade policy seeks to improve market access for U.S. agricultural products through multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade agreements. U.S. officials also seek to hold countries to commitments made under existing agreements, and to resolve disputes impeding farm exports. The Administration is participating in the current Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations, which have focused on the so-called three pillars of agricultural trade liberalization: trade-distorting domestic subsidies, market access, and export competition. Negotiators have been unable to reach a compromise agreement on reducing subsidies or expanding market access for agricultural products. The expiration of Trade Promotion Authority for fast-track consideration of trade agreements next year makes the end of 2006 the effective deadline for getting an agreement ready for congressional consideration. The United States has insisted that it will not improve its offer on domestic subsidy reduction unless the EU improves its market access offer and the G-20 countries show a willingness to open their markets not only to agricultural products but to industrial products and services as well. (See CRS Report RL33144, WTO Doha Round: The Agricultural Negotiations , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].) The 109 th Congress passed legislation ( P.L. 109-53 ) to implement the Dominican Republic-Central America-U.S. free trade agreement (DR-CAFTA) despite strong opposition from the U.S. sugar industry, which fears those countries would gain increased access to the U.S. market. Separately, and also negotiating new free trade agreements with Panama, the Andean countries, Thailand, and the Southern African Customs Union, among others. (See CRS Report RL32110, Agriculture in the U.S.-Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) , by [author name scrubbed].) Other ongoing issues of interest to Congress include rules of trade for the products of agricultural biotechnology (see CRS Report RL32809, Agricultural Biotechnology: Background and Recent Issues , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]); the scope of restrictions that should apply to agricultural sales to Cuba (see CRS Report RL33499, Exempting Food and Agriculture Products from U.S. Economic Sanctions: Status and Implementation , by [author name scrubbed]); and funding for U.S. agricultural export and food aid programs (see CRS Report RL33553, Agricultural Export and Food Aid Programs , by [author name scrubbed]). The potential of terrorist attacks against agricultural targets (agroterrorism) is increasingly recognized as a national security threat. "Food defense"—hardening the critical infrastructure against possible attack—has received increased attention since 2001. Through increased appropriations, laboratory and response capacities are being upgraded. National response plans now incorporate agroterrorism. Yet some in Congress want additional laws or oversight to increase the level of food defense, particularly regarding interagency coordination, response and recovery leadership, and ensuring adequate border inspections. (See CRS Report RL32521, Agroterrorism: Threats and Preparedness , by [author name scrubbed] . ) Approximately 76 million people get sick and 5,000 die from food-related illnesses in the United States each year, it is estimated. Congress frequently conducts oversight and periodically considers legislation on food safety and could do so again. Some Members continue to be interested in the control of animal diseases that also threaten human health; the regulation of bioengineered foods, human antimicrobial resistance (which some link partly to misuse of antibiotics in animal feed), and the safety of fresh produce. In the 109 th Congress, for example, S. 729 and H.R. 1507 propose to consolidate U.S. food safety oversight under an independent U.S. agency. H.R. 3160 and S. 1357 clarify USDA's authority in prescribing performance standards for the reduction of pathogens in meat and poultry products. (See CRS Report RL31853, Food Safety Issues in the 109 th Congress , by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report RL32922, Meat and Poultry Inspection: Background and Selected Issues , by [author name scrubbed].) Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or "mad cow disease") continues to attract interest, with eleven native North American cases (three in the United States) confirmed through early October 2006. Authorities characterize the risk to human health from these cases as extremely low. However, the beef industry has suffered economically due to foreign borders being closed to U.S. beef. The appearance of BSE in North America in 2003 raised meat safety concerns and disrupted trade for cattle and beef producers. A major issue for Congress has been how to rebuild foreign markets for U.S. beef. Other issues include whether additional measures are needed to further protect cattle and the public, and concerns over the relative costs and benefits of such measures for consumers, taxpayers, and industry. (See CRS Report RS22345, BSE ( " Mad Cow Disease " ): A Brief Overview , by [author name scrubbed].) Since 2003, highly pathogenic avian influenza (H5N1) has spread from Asia into Europe, the Middle East, and Africa; however, no cases of H5N1 have been found yet in the United States. Because avian flu is highly contagious in domestic poultry and can be carried by wild birds, on-farm biosecurity is important. Controlling avian flu in poultry is seen as the best way to prevent a human pandemic from developing. Congress responded to the threat by providing an emergency FY2006 supplemental appropriation (in P.L. 109-148 ) to combat avian flu, including $91 million for USDA operations. This supplements the regular funding of $28 million for FY2006, which includes $15 million in unused funds from prior years. For FY2007, USDA requests $82 million for avian flu. (See CRS Report RL33795, Avian Influenza in Poultry and Wild Birds , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].) Mandatory COOL for fresh meats, produce, and peanuts was scheduled to take effect September 30, 2006. However, the FY2006 Agriculture Appropriations Act ( P.L. 109-97 ) again postponed mandatory COOL for two additional years. Some Members continue to support mandatory COOL, and a few of them would prefer that it take effect sooner ( S. 1331 ) or be expanded to processed meats ( S. 135 ). Others have sought to replace mandatory COOL with voluntary labeling programs. A bill ( H.R. 2068 ) sponsored by the chairman of the House Agriculture Committee (and an identical Senate bill, S. 1333 ) would make COOL labeling voluntary for fresh meats. S. 1300 would make COOL voluntary for meat, fish, and produce. (See CRS Report RS22955, Country-of-Origin Labeling for Foods , by [author name scrubbed].) Both the Senate- and House-passed versions of the FY2006 agriculture appropriation bill ( H.R. 2744 ) barred use of appropriated funds to pay for ante-mortem inspection of horses for food. The enacted version ( P.L. 109-97 ) makes the funding ban effective only for approximately the last six months of FY2006; during this time the three foreign-owned plants in the U.S. that currently slaughter horses, primarily for European and Japanese consumers, are paying user fees for such inspection. Free-standing legislation to ban horse slaughter includes H.R. 503 (which passed the full House by a vote of 263-146 on September 7, 2006) and S. 1915 . Among other pending farm animal welfare related-bills are S. 1779 and H.R. 3931 , to prohibit nonambulatory livestock (also called "downers") from being used for human food; and H.R. 5557 , to require the federal government to purchase only food and fiber products that were raised in compliance with prescribed humane standards. (See CRS Report RS21842, Horse Slaughter Prevention Bills and Issues , by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report RS21978, Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Issues , by [author name scrubbed].) The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is an independent federal regulatory agency that regulates the futures trading industry. The CFTC is subject to periodic reauthorization; current authority expired on September 30, 2005. Congress traditionally uses the reauthorization process to consider amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), which provides the basis for federal regulation of commodity futures trading. The House and Senate Agriculture Committees, with jurisdiction over CFTC, conducted hearings on CFTC reauthorization in March 2005. The full House passed its version of CFTC reauthorization ( H.R. 4473 ) on December 14, 2005. Floor action on a Senate-reported measure ( S. 1566 ) is pending. Among the issues in the debate are (1) regulation of energy derivatives markets, where some see excessive price volatility and a lack of effective regulation; (2) the market in security futures, or futures contracts based on single stocks, where cumbersome and duplicative regulation is blamed for low trading volumes; (3) the regulatory status of foreign futures exchanges selling contracts in the United States; and (4) the legality of futures-like contracts based on foreign currency prices offered to retail investors. (See CRS Report RS22028, CFTC Reauthorization , by [author name scrubbed].) Hired farmworkers are an important component of agricultural production. Many of these laborers are under guest worker programs, which are meant to assure employers (e.g., fruit, vegetable, and horticulture growers) of an adequate supply of labor when and where it is needed while not adding permanent residents to the U.S. population. The connection between farm labor and immigration policies is a longstanding one, particularly with regard to U.S. employers' use of workers from Mexico. The 109 th Congress is taking up the issue as part of a larger debate over initiation of a broad-based guest worker program, increased border enforcement, and employer sanctions to curb the flow of unauthorized workers into the United States. House and Senate immigration reform measures ( H.R. 4437 and S. 2454 ) currently being debated have important implications for hired farm labor. Other bills ( H.R. 884 / S. 359 and H.R. 3857 ) introduced in the 109 th Congress specifically address agricultural labor issues. (See CRS Report RL33125, Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 109th Congress , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]; CRS Report 95-712, The Effects on U.S. Farm Workers of an Agricultural Guest Worker Program , by [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report RL30395, Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy , by [author name scrubbed].)

A number of issues affecting U.S. agriculture have been or are being addressed by the 109 th Congress. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 ( P.L. 109-171 ), enacted in February 2006, included a net reduction in spending on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) mandatory programs of $2.7 billion over five years, and the reauthorization of a dairy income support program. Other issues of importance to agriculture during the second session of the 109 th Congress include the consideration of emergency farm disaster assistance; multilateral and bilateral trade negotiations; concerns about agroterrorism, food safety, and animal and plant diseases (e.g., "mad cow" disease and avian flu); high energy costs; environmental issues; agricultural marketing matters; the reauthorization of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; and farm labor issues.

So, everyone's excited about the new Facebook Places, right? The Facebook service that lets you check-in, Foursquare style, at whatever hip Sushi bar/bicycle repair shop you happen to be in. Oh, and also other people can check you in, too. Click to viewFacebook places, which rolls out this evening, allows your friends (and only your friends) to tag you when checking into a place, much as they might tag you in a picture. This is terrible! Of course, you are notified whenever anyone tags you in a check-in, and you can always delete a tag. But, still. You're probably not checking in because either 1) You don't want people to know where you are. Or 2) You spent all your money on Star Wars memorabilia and can't afford a smartphone, so you won't see that someone's tagged you until you get home anyway. Why to do It Here are a couple situations off the top of our head where someone else tagging you could bring social doom: You are at the bar when you are supposed to be at your girlfriend's crappy art show. Your chat with your friend Jane, who checks into the bar and tags you: "At this awesome bar, just talked to [Your name here] about his Star Wars memorabilia collection!" Your girlfriend sees this on Jane's wall, walks over to the bar and dumps you on the spot. You are having an affair with your wife's sister. Your wife's sister checks into her home and says "Having awesome sex with [Your name here]". Your wife sees this on her sister's wall and divorces you. (Also, a robber you're friends with steals your Star Wars memorabilia collection because he knows you're out having the affair.) That second one is not very probable, but you get the point! At the Facebook places launch event, an engineer equated tagging someone in a check-in with tagging someone in a picture. Not quite the same thing. Someone has to point a thing at you and take your picture. But anyone can go to the bathroom, tag you in a check-in, then a significant other/spouse/boss/stranger sees it and: Boom. Your life is ruined. A picture does not automatically tell someone exactly where you are, with whom, when, and whether you are having an awesome time, despite the fact that you should be at your girlfriend's terrible art opening. How to do it Here's how to make sure other people can't tag you on Places. Plus, how to adjust the two other Places privacy settings. First, click on the Account tab at the top right and click Privacy Settings. Select the little blue "customize settings" towards the bottom of the screen that appears. You'll see a list of privacy options. Under the Things Others Share category, disable "Friends can check me in to Places." Now, only you can broadcast your location. You can also choose who can see your check-ins. Click the "Places I check in" pulldown under the Things I Share category. The default is "friends only." Selecting "Customize" brings up a pop-up where you can exclude entire networks, individual people, or everyone. Finally, you may want to disable the "People Here Now" feature. "People Here Now" allows any user checked in at a location to see who else is checked in there—even if they're not friends. Make sure the box is unchecked next to "Include me in 'People Here Now' after I check in." There. Your Star Wars memorabilia collection is safe and you are ready to sneak around like the sexy Russian spy you may or may not be. Now if only there was a big button that could easily disable the whole damn thing. Click to view ||||| Facebook Places: Check This Out Before You Check In By Nicole Ozer (Aug 18, 2010 at 5:45 pm) Following Facebook’s announcement today about its new location-based product, Places, here’s what the ACLU of Northern California has to say on the privacy front: Facebook made some changes to its regular privacy practices to protect sensitive location-based information, such as limiting the default visibility of check-ins on your feed to “Friends Only.” But it has failed to build in some other important privacy safeguards. In the world of Facebook Places, “no” is unfortunately not an option. Places allows your friends to tag you when they check in somewhere, and Facebook makes it very easy to say “yes” to allowing your friends to check in for you. But when it comes to opting out of that feature, you are only given a “not now” option (aka ask me again later). “No” isn’t one of the easy options. And if you use Places yourself, you aren’t even given a “not now;” you’re just told that friends are able to check-in for you and left to discover for yourself that you can change this setting by digging into your privacy controls. (Visit our Facebook Places resource page for instructions about how to manage your privacy settings) Facebook is rolling out “here now,” privacy later. The “Here Now" feature of Places provides a list of people who have recently checked-in at a given Place. But while Facebook makes it easy to let people know your current location, you have limited ability to control who knows where you are. • Problem 1: You don’t have full control over who can see you in the “Here Now” list. You can only choose to turn the feature on or off. If it’s on, any Places user who checks in at the same place can see you in the Here Now list. • Problem 2: “Here Now” is turned on by default if you have previously selected that “Everyone” can see even a single piece of your information. Places data is on the move. Facebook immediately opened up location data to applications and Connect sites. This means that your friends’ apps may be able to access information about your most recent check-in by default as soon as you start using Places. Even if you’ve already gone through your settings to limit the info that apps can access, you should do it again- you may find that you’ve been defaulted into sharing your location info with apps. For more information about Facebook Places and detailed instructions for how to manage your privacy settings and safeguard your location information, visit our resource page here. ||||| Tonight at Facebook's press conference to announce its Foursquare-squasher, Facebook Places, CEO Mark Zuckerberg revealed a few ceremonies the company goes through when it launches new products. They're kind of wacky. There's a gong. And a huge switch. Watch: ||||| The 800-pound gorilla of social networks, Facebook, is jumping into the location game. On Wednesday, it announced a new, optional service for its 500 million members called Places, which allows you to check in to various places you go, and share that information with your Facebook friends, complete with maps and comments and the Facebook thumbs-up “like” feature. I’ve been testing the new service, and found it easy to use and reliable, with mostly logical privacy controls, an issue on which Facebook has been bruised in the past. Companies began to build location-based social networks shortly after smartphones began to include social-networking apps and the ability to pinpoint your location. These services let you and your network “friends” know if you were in the same area, so you could get together. They also let merchants entice you with coupons or ads. All you had to do was use your smartphone to “check in” an establishment. These location-based networks, notably Foursquare, have grown fast. Especially in a recession, many users appreciate offers to save money. There also is money to be made by the merchants. But these networks are controversial. Though most have privacy controls, they are accused of eroding privacy by allowing others to know exactly where you are at any time. They also raise issues about giving such information to merchants. Fourquare also has turned off some potential users with a big overlay of game-like features, like earning points and badges for visiting places, and even the ability to become the “mayor” of, say, a bar you frequent. On the Facebook app, you initially can check in to Places only if you have Apple’s iPhone, though you can use a site at touch.facebook.com via your browser on other phones and laptops that can track your location and support HTML 5 technology. Facebook Places on the iPhone. Facebook Places on the iPhone. In the past week or so, my colleague Katherine Boehret and I have used Facebook Places to check in with iPhones around our home base of Washington, D.C., at stores, bars, restaurants and even our office. I also was able to check in, or “tag,” other Facebook members with me, like my visiting son and daughter-in-law. All of these tests went well, but I was surprised by one odd thing: I could check myself into nearby places even if I wasn’t there. At each location, Places lets you see your friends and other Facebook members (even if they’re not your friends), who are nearby, a feature called “People Here Now.” Minors are excluded from seeing anyone except their friends. We couldn’t test this “Here Now” feature because, in the pre-release stage, there weren’t enough people with the new service to be nearby. These check-ins were posted on our Facebook pages (though, for this test, they could only be seen by the handful of others with pre-release access to the service), and people could comment. One reason Facebook has launched Places, surely, is to compete with location-based services like Foursquare and Gowalla. Those services already can link up with Facebook and tap its huge member base, a potential threat to the larger social network. Facebook says it is adding Places merely to enrich the social experience it already provides. The company says its users already post status messages that say things like: “at Starbucks in Harvard Square with Susan and Jeff.” Now, they can tap a new Places icon in the Facebook app on their iPhones and do this more easily, complete with a map. “We’re just building a new way for people to share that information in an engaging way,” says one Facebook official. Facebook says it isn’t monetizing the service, at least not at first, but may consider ways for companies to make use of the data “down the line.” Users won’t receive ads or offers, at least initially. But if a merchant already has a Facebook page, some will be able to display your check-ins from the start, though visible only to your friends. Facebook says it has no plans to add game-like features to Places, though third-party developers might. In addition to testing Places around town, I paid close attention to its privacy features, to judge how much control Facebook is offering users over who gets to see where they are. My conclusion is that the controls are decent, but could be a bit better. You can control how public your Places information is on Facebook’s privacy settings screen, in the Sharing section. The default for Places is “Friends Only,” unless you expressed a preference to share things with everyone. That’s a good thing, in my view. You can change this to broaden it to, say, friends of friends, or even everyone. Or, you can limit it, so that, for instance, only certain people can see your location, or certain people can’t. Facebook also allows you to bar others from checking you in, and lets you hide yourself from others’ “Here Now” listings, though you can’t customize this latter setting by, say, allowing only some people to know you’re nearby. In my tests, these settings worked fine. But I wished a couple of other settings were available. For example, you can’t keep check-in notices off your Facebook page, unless you broadly block other kinds of status updates. And you can’t block merchants from including your check-ins at their establishments on their Facebook pages. Also, while Places omits some annoying aspects of its competitors, like the game features, it’s more stripped down and leaves out some attractive features others include. Foursquare has a feature that lets you leave suggestions about a location. And Gowalla has a “trips” feature that lets users string together places they’ve been into recommended tours. Overall, I found Places a good enhancement to Facebook and one that will likely make the booming social network even more attractive to some. Find all of Walt Mossberg’s columns and videos at walt.allthingsd.com. Email him at [email protected]. ||||| Updated: After careful consideration, I’m retracting my B and replacing it with a C-, penalizing Facebook for superfluous complexity and a lack of transparency. I wrote the original article on Wednesday evening, after attending the press event, carefully reading the company’s blog post, comparing notes and talking to several Facebook representatives. While the following information is correct, Facebook did not fully explain that there are three different stages to “opting-in.” We talked to Facebook on the phone today, expressed our concern, and they acknowledged that there was a lack of clarity. Facebook is currently making a demo video to properly address these privacy issues. In the meantime, Jason Kincaid has delivered a must-read explanation of these three opt-in stages here. The following is my original post: Less than one hour after Facebook struck the ceremonial gong, signaling the official birth of Places, the ACLU of Northern California was ready to cry foul play. In a 429-word post titled, “Facebook Places: Check This Out, Before You Check In,” the ACLU branch rips the new feature for a perceived lack of user control, complaining (in dramatically bold font) that “in the world of Facebook Places, “no” is unfortunately not an option.” While this anonymous ACLU member may have a real knack for writing movie trailers, I don’t buy the case they’re building against Facebook. To be honest, I’ve never been a fan of Facebook’s history with privacy, but they are making a real effort to dial up privacy with Places. So while all sins are not forgiven, let’s start with a solid B for Places and a promise not to burn them at the stake (at least not today). First, let’s walk through what you need to know as a user (this post is updated with further clarification from Facebook’s Director of Policy Communications, Barry Schnitt). Facebook will not automatically broadcast your location data on Places. You cannot pass go, you cannot collect $200, until you give Facebook the greenlight. As a first time user, you have to check-in yourself via the iPhone app or touch.facebook.com or your friend has to check-in for you. If your friend tries to check you in, you have two options: pick “not now” or to accept friend check-ins (as implied, once you select yes, you will automatically accept friend check-ins). In their Places guide, the ACLU brings up the valid point that if you pick “not now,” you will continue to receiving annoying check-in requests every time a friend tags you. Of course, there’s an easy fix, simply go into your privacy settings, click on “customize settings” under “Sharing On Facebook,” scroll down to the second section (“Things Others Share”) and switch “Friends Can Check Me Into Places” to disabled. Places will tell you when your friend has checked you in. Similar to photo tags, you will be notified every time a friend checks you in. And like photos, you can untag yourself. The ACLU and other critics are wagging their fingers at Facebook for automating this process and not giving the user the choice to accept or reject every single request. Facebook had to make a judgment call here, between enhancing control and making the experience easy and enjoyable. As a new user, I would be frustrated by a service that demanded my attention for every friend check-in. Of course there is a chance that a rampaging ex-girlfriend or arch nemesis will exploit this tool to slander your good name, tying you to trysts that never happened or houses of ill repute—- then again, there is that nifty difty defriend option. Here Now is not the devil. This is probably the most controversial aspect of Places. The feature is enabled by default if you have loose privacy settings, however, it is not enabled if you’ve set your master privacy control to Friends of Friends or Friends or if you’ve customized your settings to be restrictive. Under “People Here Now,” you can see who else has checked into a location with you. This public check-in (which is only public to those that have checked into the location) is only available for a short period of time. In a longer post detailing the features of Places, the ACLU chided Facebook for not giving users granular controls on Here Now. The ACLU claims that users can only choose between enable and disable and cannot narrow their Here Now audience to just friends or something more customized. While Here Now is technically an on or off switch, by turning it off and customizing your Places profile, Facebook effectively achieves the ACLU’s demands. As Facebook’s Director of Policy Communications, Barry Schnitt told us, “By configuring the Places I Check-In setting, which can be configured granularly, and turning off Here Now, you guarantee that only the people you specify will see you on a Place page. Their [the ACLU] suggestion adds complexity without adding any utility and we are very surprised that a privacy advocate would be taking such a position, especially after all of the progress we’ve made in making control on Facebook simple and easy to use.” The default is friends-only. When you begin completing and accepting check-ins only your friends can see your activity, not your friends or friends or your college network, just your friends. I can’t really give Facebook a lot of credit for this one, it’s just good common sense. Under your privacy settings you can customize this further, even selecting which friends can see your check-ins. Considering the sensitivity around location, I think Zuckerberg & Co. recognized early on that any default less than “friends only” would be an open invitation for privacy sharks. Your apartment is safe. During the press conference, someone asked the Facebook team what would happen if someone turned their apartment into a “place” on Facebook, how could they protect their privacy in that situation? We spoke to Facebook Product Manager Michael Sharon who says the company has a strong system in place to rapidly accept complaints from users. While there is no set time frame for handling a red flag, he says problems will be dealt with swiftly and often within 24 hours. See video below. Sharing is not always caring: the ACLU’s best point. There is one place where I find common ground with the ACLU: Facebook’s policy when it comes to sharing location information with third-party applications. As a user, the applications you install will need your explicit permission to get your check-in information. That’s valid, however, if your friend has weak privacy settings, s/he is free to share your check-in information to applications and Connect partners. This can be easily remedied by unchecking a box in your privacy settings but it is permitted by default. According to Schnitt, this exchange exposes information on your “check-ins, details about a place, ability to search for places and check-ins from friends.” Not surprisingly, Facebook claims this is all in the name of creating “new social experiences with location.” I completely agree that it will ultimately enhance applications (and Facebook’s bottom line) but this should be an opt-in service. For example, when you first check-in or accept check-ins, Facebook should immediately ask you if you want to give your friends’ applications access to your check-in data. To be fair to its users, Facebook needs to increase the visibility of this feature. Because nlike the other settings, like Here Now, this exchange takes place in the background and I suspect the vast majority of Facebook users will not know that their data is being quietly siphoned off by their friends’ applications. If after all this you’re still thrusting your pitchfork in the air, you can always click here. Bonus: On Wednesday, we also got a chance to sit with Sharon for a longer, 5-minute interview. He discussed the story behind Facebook Places, the importance of tagging and navigating their partnerships. More information can be found on Facebook’s blog post here. (Top image via Flickr/Colin Purrington) ||||| Hi! You are about to activate our Facebook Messenger news bot. Once subscribed, the bot will send you a digest of trending stories once a day. You can also customize the types of stories it sends you. Click on the button below to subscribe and wait for a new Facebook message from the TC Messenger news bot. Thanks, TC Team ||||| I love how companies “cooperate” in the tech industry. Twitter recently “helped” out TweetMeme by giving them another business to focus on. Facebook has now “helped” out Foursquare by making them wonder what’s next. They also welcomed the company up on stage to announce that they would … GASP … consider what to do with Facebook Places! Apparently Foursquare will eventually have Facebook integration, however right now they are working on their own product roadmap and don’t have the resources to integrate. Contrast this with Booyah who’s already launching a new application, called InCrowd, on the back of Facebook’s Places API. Granted, Booyah has most likely been pressured by investors to integrate with Facebook’s new services, however one would imagine that the new Places services provides Foursquare with a significant opportunity which they’d want to jump on quickly. Foursquare happened to be the highest profile company to speak at the event because they were the most at risk of being damaged by Facebook Places. Dennis Crowley, CEO of Foursquare, is still optimistic however, despite appearing to be left in the dark on this one. He told VentureBeat, “If Facebook thinks that location is a good idea, then we are on to something.” Yes Dennis, you were definitely on to something, which is why Facebook just integrated a lot of the existing service’s functionality. Granted, Foursquare users may not run for the door right away, but it’s only a matter of time. With 2 million users, there’s no way Foursquare users have the majority of their social graph using the product. Instead, a small group of people use the product and now Foursquare will need to figure out a major shift to their product (aka. “Pivot”). Facebook has learned their lesson from the Twitter experience: don’t let a potential competitor get too large. Acquire them or duplicate them early on. Update As Techcrunch pointed out, Facebook’s new places logo also happens to be the number 4 in a square. Coincidence? Update 2 Facebook has let us know that Foursquare actually had early access to the API but hasn’t yet launched anything. Instead they are figuring out what they want to do with the API.

Facebook’s highly anticipated “Places” feature is here, and the ACLU is not happy about it. It's taken issue with features that allow your friends to check in for you and allow non-friends to see where you are via “Here Now." It declares (bold theirs) "in the world of Facebook Places, 'no' is unfortunately not an option." Are we all in trouble? Nah, says Tech Crunch. Facebook is “making a real effort to dial up privacy with Places,” writes Evelyn Rusli, noting that it’s easy to opt out of both those features (click here for detailed instructions on how to do just that). You're fine if you have a brain, says Walt Mossberg, who calls Places' privacy controls "mostly logical" on All Things Digital. He notes that it “omits some annoying aspects of its competitors, like the game features,” but is also “more stripped down and leaves out some attractive features others include,” like the ability to give suggestions. But FourSquare might be in trouble. “I don’t want to preemptively say that Foursquare is about to killed by Facebook,” writes Nick O'Neill on All Facebook, but “I’m not quite sure what value-add Foursquare brings to the table at this point.” Making the “punking,” as O’Neill calls it, of FourSquare even worse: The logo for Places is "a 4. In a square," notes Greg Kumparak on TechCrunch. Enough said. And just because we think you should know this, Facebook apparently announces new products ... with a gong. Click here for more on the Places launch.

President Trump fired acting attorney general Sally Yates on Monday night after she ordered Justice Department lawyers not to defend his immigration order temporarily banning entry into the United States for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries and refugees from around the world. In a news release, the White House said Yates had “betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States.�? Trump named in her place Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Boente said he would enforce the president’s directive until he was replaced by Trump’s attorney general nominee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala). [Who is Sally Yates? Meet the acting attorney general Trump fired for ‘betraying’ the Justice Department] “Yes, I will,�? he said in a brief phone interview with The Washington Post. “I was enforcing it this afternoon. Our career department employees were defending the action in court, and I expect that’s what they’ll do tomorrow, appropriately and properly.�? Later Monday, he formally rescinded Yates’s order and instructed Justice Department employees “to do our sworn duty and to defend the lawful orders of our President.�? View Graphic Who is affected by Trump’s travel ban The move came just hours after Yates ordered the Justice Department not to defend Trump’s immigration order, declaring in a memo that she was not convinced the order is lawful. Yates wrote that, as the leader of the Justice Department, she must ensure that the department’s position is “legally defensible�? and “consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.�? “At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful,�? Yates wrote. She wrote that “for as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so.�? The stunning events marked the latest sign of turmoil over Trump’s announcement Friday that he would shut the U.S. borders to refugees and those entering the country from seven Muslim-majority countries. More than 100 State Department diplomats have signed a memo objecting to Trump’s order, arguing that it will not deter attacks on American soil. The document, which says Trump’s ban will generate ill will toward U.S. citizens, is destined for what’s known as the department’s Dissent Channel, which was set up during the Vietnam War as a way for diplomats to signal to senior leadership their disagreement on foreign policy decisions. Yates was a holdover from the Obama administration, but her move still represented notable disagreement from someone who would be on the front lines of implementing it. A Justice Department official said that hours after Yates released her memo refusing to defend the president’s executive order, she was delivered a one-line letter from the head of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel saying that she had been removed. The White House then announced her firing with a statement criticizing her as “an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration.�? “It is time to get serious about protecting our country,�? the statement said. “Calling for tougher vetting for individuals travelling from seven dangerous places is not extreme. It is reasonable and necessary to protect our country.�? (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post) [Read the White House statement on Sally Yates] Sessions, Trump’s pick to lead the Justice Department permanently, is awaiting Senate confirmation, although it could come as early as this week. The Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider his nomination Tuesday, and the entire Senate must wait one day before voting. A spokeswoman for Sessions declined to comment. Boente (pronounced BEN-tay), who was sworn in at 9 p.m., said he would serve until Sessions is confirmed, which he understood from news reports might happen by week’s end. He declined to say when or by whom he was approached to take over as acting attorney general, and he also declined to discuss the specifics of Yates’s memo. Boente is a longtime federal prosecutor who has a remarkably low-key demeanor, although he has supervised high-profile investigations and prosecutions. Assistant U.S. attorneys from his office were involved in the probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server, and they won the criminal convictions — which were later vacated — against former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell (R). Boente also led the prosecutions of former U.S. representative William J. Jefferson (D-La.) and former New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin (D). At his swearing-in ceremony as U.S. attorney, then-Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch called him “that reliable middle child, the one you could always count on to be there for you.�? Boente would not have been first in the line of succession ordered by Obama, who had placed U.S. attorneys in the District of Columbia, Chicago and Los Angeles ahead. [Who is new acting attorney general Dana Boente?] Yates’s refusal to defend to Trump’s immigration order — and her firing over it — capped a day in which resistance to the ban fomented inside the government and across the country. Civil rights lawyers and others across the country increased the pressure on Trump on Monday to dial back the ban — filing legal challenges to the executive order as they worked to determine whether people were still being improperly denied entry or detained. Lee Gelernt, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who worked on one of the legal challenges, said of Yates’s memo, “It sends a very strong message that there’s something very wrong with the Muslim ban.�? Earlier in the day, former president Barack Obama also weighed in on the executive action through a spokesman, seeming to back those demonstrating against Trump’s decree and declaring his opposition to “discriminating against individuals because of their faith or religion.�? Obama said that he was “heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country�? — an apparent reference to protests at airports nationwide. He also disputed Trump’s claim that his ban was based on Obama administration decisions. A Justice Department official familiar with the matter said Yates felt that she was in an “impossible situation�? and had been struggling with what to do about a measure she did not consider lawful. A Justice Department official confirmed over the weekend that the department’s Office of Legal Counsel had been asked to review the measure to determine whether it was “on its face lawful and properly drafted.�? In her memo, though, Yates said her role was broader. She wrote that an Office of Legal Counsel review does “not address whether any policy choice embodied in an Executive Order is wise or just,�? nor does it “take account of statements made by an administration or its surrogates close in time to the issuance of an Executive Order that may bear on the order’s purpose.�? That could be a reference to Trump’s campaign trail comments about a “Muslim ban�? or the recent assertion by Trump surrogate Rudolph W. Giuliani that the president had asked him “the right way to do it legally.�? Democrats criticized Yates’s firing as an unfair termination of someone who was following the law. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said, “What the Trump administration calls betrayal is an American with the courage to say that the law and the Constitution come first.�? Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said the termination “underscores how important it is to have an attorney general who will stand up to the White House when they are violating the law,�? and said many have doubts about Sessions. Others, though, turned their ire on Yates. “It can’t be stated strongly enough how reckless, irresponsible and improper the behavior was of the acting attorney general, Sally Yates, in refusing to defend the president’s order,�? senior policy adviser Stephen Miller told Fox News. Miller accused Yates of “refusing to defend the lawful powers of the president.�? He also said he had no doubt about the order’s legality. George J. Terwilliger III, a deputy attorney general in the George H.W. Bush administration, said Yates’s memo was a “foolish, naked political move by what appears to be an ambitious holdover official�? that would only create “unnecessary disorder.�? Even with Yates gone, there remain serious questions about the implementation of the order. A lawsuit in Virginia asserted that dozens of people may have been forced to give up their green cards by Customs and Border Protection agents, although that figure could not immediately be substantiated. Lawyers in Los Angeles said they had received similar reports, though they were still exploring them. The ACLU’s Gelernt said that lawyers were “having trouble independently verifying anything because the government will not provide full access to all the detainees.�? Of particular concern, he said, was that the government had not turned over a list of detainees, as it had been ordered to do by a federal judge in New York. He said that lawyers might be back in federal court in the next day or so to forcibly get access to it. [ACLU: Delay Sessions confirmation vote until ‘Muslim ban’ is stopped] The ACLU lawsuit in New York is perhaps the most significant of a growing number of legal challenges. The Council on American-Islamic Relations also filed a sweeping challenge Monday, alleging that the order is meant “to initiate the mass expulsion of immigrant and non-immigrant Muslims lawfully residing in the United States.�? The lawsuit lists 27 plaintiffs, many of them lawful permanent residents and refugees who allege that Trump’s order will deny them citizenship or prevent them from traveling abroad and returning home. Lawyers with the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project filed a similar challenge in Washington state. Bob Ferguson, Washington state’s attorney general, also filed a lawsuit on Monday alleging broad, constitutional concerns with the order and its impact on Washington — making him the first state official to do so. That lawsuit has the support of Microsoft and Amazon.com, two companies based in Washington state. (Amazon owner Jeffrey P. Bezos owns The Washington Post and has voiced Amazon’s opposition to the order personally.) White House press secretary Sean Spicer said that one lawsuit “doesn’t make any sense�? and sought to minimize the action as simply subjecting 109 people to more rigorous screening. According to State Department statistics, about 90,000 people received nonimmigrant or immigrant visas in fiscal year 2015 from the seven countries affected by Trump’s executive order. Read more: Some international passengers entering the U.S. more easily, but members of Congress say they’re still not getting answers Scholars: Many more legal challenges likely for Trump’s executive order on immigration Jihadist groups hail Trump’s travel ban as a victory Ed O’Keefe, Rachel Weiner, Ellen Nakashima, Juliet Eilperin, John Wagner and Carol Morello contributed to this report. ||||| (In this Jan. 30 story, corrects spelling of Sergey Brin in paragraph 24) By Roberta Rampton and Julia Edwards Ainsley WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump fired top federal government lawyer Sally Yates on Monday after she took the extraordinarily rare step of defying the White House and refused to defend new travel restrictions targeting seven Muslim-majority nations. It was another dramatic twist in the unusually raucous roll-out of Trump’s directive that put a 120-day hold on allowing refugees into the country, an indefinite ban on refugees from Syria and a 90-day bar on citizens from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen. The Friday night ban prompted protests and chaos at airports on the weekend as customs officials struggled to put the order into practise, and the fallout spread to U.S. markets on Monday, where stocks suffered their biggest drop of 2017 and companies affected by the change spoke out against it. Yates said late on Monday that the Justice Department would not defend the order against court challenges, saying that she did not believe it would be “consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right.” Hours later, she was fired. The White House said Yates “has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States” and portrayed her actions as political. Trump has argued tougher vetting of immigrants is needed to protect America from terror attacks but critics complain that his order unfairly singles out Muslims and defiles America’s historic reputation as a welcoming place for immigrants. Yates, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama, was days away from being replaced by Trump’s pick for the top spot at the Justice Department, Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, who is awaiting Senate confirmation. “Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration,” the White House said in a statement. The White House said that Dana Boente, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was sworn in at 9 p.m. ET and would be acting U.S. attorney general until Sessions is approved. Boente said in an interview with the Washington Post that he would enforce the immigration order. DRAMA There have been only a handful of instances in U.S. history of top Justice Department officials publicly breaking with the White House. The most famous example was in 1973, when then-Attorney General Elliot Richardson and his deputy resigned rather than obey President Richard Nixon’s order to fire a special prosecutor investigating the Watergate scandal. The incident, which became known as the “Saturday Night Massacre,” was a public relations disaster and is seen as a turning point in Nixon’s administration. The drama at the Justice Department is another sign of how hastily Trump’s immigration order was developed and how little it was reviewed by the agencies now grappling to implement it. The White House said key government officials were briefed before Trump signed the order on Friday, but there was little coordination or consultation, resulting in confusion. Most State Department officials found out about it from media reports. Officials from the State Department circulated a draft memo of dissent on Monday, saying Trump’s move would hurt America’s image abroad and inflame anti-American sentiment. White House spokesman Sean Spicer dismissed the memo. “These career bureaucrats have a problem with it? I think that they should either get with the program or they can go,” he told reporters at his daily briefing. An internal Department of Homeland Security document seen by Reuters showed 348 visa holders were kept from boarding U.S.-bound flights this week, and more than 200 people came to the United States but were denied entry. More than 735 people were pulled aside for questioning by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers at airports, including 394 green card holders, who are legal permanent residents of the United States, the document said. U.S. Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates testifies during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque Trump’s administration is granting waivers from the refugee ban to allow 872 people into the country this week - refugees that had already been cleared for resettlement in the United States and were in transit when the order came out. Tens of thousands of people protested Trump’s order in major American cities and at airports on the weekend. Obama took the rare step of weighing in, saying through a spokesman that he was heartened by the political activism on the issue. Employees of Alphabet Inc’s Google in San Francisco, Mountain View, Seattle and other cities held protests. Backed by a sign that said “We are a nation of immigrants,” Sergey Brin, president of Alphabet, said he was outraged by the order. “The U.S. had the courage to take me and my family in as refugees,” he said in a YouTube video of his remarks. TECH BACKING FOR COURT CHALLENGES Federal judges blocked deportation of those detained under the order through the weekend, and more lawsuits were filed on Monday. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country’s biggest Muslim advocacy group, filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of more than 20 people. Washington state filed a lawsuit, arguing that Trump’s order violates the equal protection clause and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Several other Democratic state attorneys general have said they are considering legal action. “It is an insult and a danger to all of the people of the state of Washington, of all faiths,” Washington state Governor Jay Inslee, a Democrat, told reporters. Amazon.com Inc and Expedia Inc, both of which are based in Washington state’s Seattle area, are supporting the state’s suit. Amazon scrapped a business trip for a senior company lawyer who was born in Libya but has UK citizenship, according to a declaration filed in support of the lawsuit. Forty-nine of its employees were born in one of the banned countries, and seven new hires may need to be placed in offices outside the United States, it said. Slideshow (12 Images) A declaration from Expedia said the order could impact the travel itineraries of at least 1,000 customers, costing it refunds as well as expenses to monitor how the order is applied and who exactly is affected. The U.S. technology industry, a major employer of foreign workers, has been the most vocal corporate opponent to Trump’s order. A group of top companies plans to meet on Tuesday to discuss how best to support legal challenges. [L1N1FL04H] ||||| Story highlights Boente's tenure as the head of the Justice Department will likely only last a few days Boente's most prominent recent case was leading the corruption trial of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell Washington (CNN) The United States acting attorney general -- for the next few days, at least -- is a little-known, but longstanding federal prosecutor. Dana Boente, the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, was sworn in as acting attorney general at 9 p.m. Monday evening after President Donald Trump fired the former acting head, Sally Yates, for her unwillingness to defend the administration's executive action on immigration. A few hours later, Boente issued a statement rescinding Yates' order, instructing DOJ lawyers to "defend the lawful orders of our President." Boente's tenure as the head of the Justice Department will only last a few days, pending attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions' approval by the Senate. But Boente has instantly been thrown into the winds of a revealing political storm just 10 days into his presidency. Boente has served the Justice Department for 31 years, according to his official biography, and has been the permanent US attorney for the Virginia court since December 2015. He served in the same role from October 2008 to September 2009, and as the US attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana from December 2012 to September 2013, at which point he was appointed to the acting US attorney role back in Virginia. "I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed," Boente said in a statement produced by the White House in announcing the appointment. "I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected." Read More ||||| poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201701/1822/1155968404_5304740684001_5304688046001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true Trump fires defiant acting attorney general The Obama administration official serving as acting chief had instructed lawyers there not to defend President Trump's executive order. President Donald Trump fired the nation's acting attorney general Monday night after she refused to defend an executive order he issued last week restricting immigration in the name of national security. In an act of high political drama just 10 days after taking office, Trump replaced Obama administration appointee Sally Yates with Dana Boente, the U.S. Attorney in Alexandria, Va. Story Continued Below "The acting Attorney General, Sally Yates, has betrayed the Department of Justice by refusing to enforce a legal order designed to protect the citizens of the United States. This order was approved as to form and legality by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel," a White House statement said. "Ms. Yates is an Obama Administration appointee who is weak on borders and very weak on illegal immigration." Yates could not be reached for comment on Trump's attack, but a person close to her called the criticism from the White House absurd. "That's preposterous. Everyone knows she's a career prosecutor for nearly three decades, well-respected by serious members of both parties," said the Yates associate, who asked not to be named. "That dog won't hunt." A Trump aide accused Yates of seeking attention. "She knew what she was doing and she knew she'd be fired. She just wanted the publicity," said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Despite sharp criticism of the wisdom of Trump’s move, there appears to be little doubt that under federal law Trump has legal authority to install any Senate-confirmed member of the Justice Department as the acting attorney general. Yates, who was the No. 2 official at the department before Trump's swearing-in and has been running the department since that time at Trump's request, sent a memo Monday saying she doubts the wisdom and the legality of the directive blocking immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries. "My responsibility is to ensure that the position of the Department of Justice is not only legally defensible, but is informed by our best view of what the law is after consideration of all the facts. In addition, I am responsible for ensuring that the positions we take in court remain consistent with this institution’s solemn obligation to always seek justice and stand for what is right," Yates wrote in a memo released by the department earlier Monday. "At present, I am not convinced that the defense of the Executive Order is consistent with these responsibilities, nor am I convinced that the Executive Order is lawful," the acting Justice Department head said. "For as long as I am the Acting Attorney General, the Department of Justice will not present arguments in defense of the Executive Order, unless and until I become convinced that it is appropriate to do so." Some lawyers warned removing Yates could disrupt other department operations, including surveillance aimed at suspected terrorists. However, two officials said Monday night that as a Senate-confirmed official Boente could sign such orders. Trump's first reaction to Yates' move came in a tweet earlier Monday evening. "The Democrats are delaying my Cabinet picks for purely political reasons. They have nothing going but to obstruct. Now have an Obama A.G.," Trump wrote, apparently accusing Yates of blocking his agenda. He did not complete the thought. Trump's removal of Yates had echoes of the so-called "Saturday Night Massacre" in 1973, when Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus both resigned rather than comply with President Richard Nixon's order to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Solicitor General Robert Bork assumed the role of acting attorney general and complied with Nixon's demand. The dismissal of someone who was investigating Nixon further undermined his credibility amid the burgeoning Watergate scandal.͝ Speaking on the Senate floor Monday night, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer hailed Yates and dubbed her firing a "Monday night massacre." "She was fired because she would not enact, pursue the executive order on the belief that it was illegal, perhaps unconstitutional," the New York Democrat said. "It was a profile in courage. It was a brave act and a right act." Schumer blasted the executive order as "evil" and faulted Trump aides for failing to clear the directive with relevant government agencies and top Cabinet officials. He also warned darkly of danger for the the country if the Trump continues to act rashly. "You just can't sit down, Twitter something out, then think, 'OK, let's enact it.' This is a complicated country, and when you do something as major as what the president proposed in his executive order, you got to think it through. You got to talk to people," Schumer said. "How can you run a country like this? ... If this continues, this country has big trouble." The top Democrat on the House Judicial Committee, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, also drew parallels to Nixon's actions more than four decades ago. "President Trump has commenced a course of conduct that is Nixonian in its design and execution and threatens the long-vaunted independence of the Justice Department," Conyers said in a statement. "If dedicated government officials deem his directives to be unlawful and unconstitutional, he will simply fire them as if government is a reality show. I call on my colleagues, regardless of party, to condemn this executive order and the reckless firing of our chief law enforcement officer. " There was little reaction from Republican lawmakers Monday night , but Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas made it clear he backed Trump's move. "It is fitting--and sad--that the very last act of the Obama DOJ is for the acting AG to defy the newly elected POTUS," Cruz wrote on Twitter. Dana Boente is now the acting attorney general. | AP Photo Boente was sworn in at about 9 p.m. Monday, according to a White House official who did not immediately provide details on who carried out the ceremony. Boente quickly reversed Yates’ DOJ memo Monday night on Trump’s executive order on immigration, saying the order was on solid ground. “Based upon the Office of Legal Counsel’s analysis, which found the Executive Order both lawful on its face and properly drafted, I hereby rescind former Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates January 30, 2017, guidance and direct the men and women of the Department of Justice to do our sworn duty and to defend the lawful orders of our President,” Boente said in a statement. Boente, who has served as a Justice Department attorney for more than 30 years, was nominated by President Barack Obama as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2015 and confirmed later that year. He has embraced his new role leading the department, according to a statement issued by the White House. “I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed. I will defend and enforce the laws of our country to ensure that our people and our nation are protected,” Boente said. His statement did not address what stance he plans to take on Trump's executive order. Boente had led a number of prosecutions of political figures, including former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife. McDonnell's bribery conviction was subsequently overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Boente may not be in the position for long. Trump's nominee for attorney general, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), is scheduled for a vote Tuesday in the Senate Judiciary Committee. A floor vote on his nomination is expected in the following days, but the exact timing remains unclear. Yates' firing seems certain to prompt fiery rhetoric at Tuesday's committee vote, which had been expected to go Sessions' way without too much drama. However, there was no immediate indication the dramatic episode caused Sessions to shed any support. Sessions’ past comments to Yates at her confirmation hearing in 2015 also started getting attention overnight. The senator at the time pressed Yates about whether should would be willing to stand up to the president if he pushes the Justice Department to pursue policies or actions that don’t appear lawful. "You have to watch out because people will be asking you to do things and you need to say no. You think the attorney general has the responsibility to say no to the president if he asks for something that's improper?" Sessions asked, adding, "But if the views the president wants to execute are unlawful, should the attorney general or the deputy attorney general say no?" Yates did not hesitate in her response, saying, "Senator, I believe the attorney general or the deputy attorney general has an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution and to give their independent legal advice to the president." The executive order Trump signed Friday temporarily halts travel to the U.S. by residents of seven countries, suspends new refugee approvals for 120 days and indefinitely shuts down the admission of Syrian refugees to the U.S. Another provision in the order gives Christians and other religious minorities in largely Muslim countries priority to immigrate to the United States. Yates memo suggested she viewed the order as legally suspect not solely because of its wording but also because of statements Trump and others have made about it. Trump indicated in an interview last week that the order was intended to give Christians an advantage in the immigration process. An outside adviser to Trump, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, has said the order grew out of Trump's effort to find a "legal" way to follow through on his campaign trail promise to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. Yates' order would have left the government with no authorized courtroom representation in several lawsuits and dozens of other court actions challenging Trump's order and the way it was carried out by immigration authorities. At least one of the suits is currently seeking a broad restraining order against Trump's directive. Some lawyers criticized Yates' memo, saying she had a legal duty to defend Trump's executive order unless she decided there was no reasonable argument for its legality. Her statement stops short of saying that, indicating that she had not been convinced the order was lawful. "The typical standard for the Attorney General to defend an EO of the President is not whether she is convinced of its legality. Rather, the standard is something closer to the idea that she should defend the EO unless she is convinced of its illegality," Harvard Law Professor and former George W. Bush Justice Department official Jack Goldsmith wrote on the Lawfare blog. Goldsmith called her statement "unpersuasive" and said the better course for her would have been to resign over her disagreement with the policy laid out in the order. Yates spent more than a decade as a career prosecutor in Atlanta, before being appointed as the U.S. Attorney there by President Barack Obama in 2010. Obama nominated her as deputy attorney general in 2014 and she assumed the role early the following year. Most political appointees resigned or offered to resign with the change in administration, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch. However, the Justice Department announced a few days before Trump's inauguration that he asked Yates to stay on as acting head of the department until a new attorney general was confirmed. Josh Dawsey contributed to this article.

Dana Boente was sworn in as acting attorney general Monday night after President Trump fired Sally Yates for defying his immigration order, but he won't be in the job for long: The long-serving federal prosecutor will be replaced by GOP Sen. Jeff Sessions as soon as he receives Senate confirmation, which is expected to take a few days at most, CNN reports. "I am honored to serve President Trump in this role until Senator Sessions is confirmed," Boente, who has been with the Justice Department for 31 years, said in a statement. Boente tells the Washington Post that he will defend Trump's order and has told others to do the same. Reuters notes that it is highly unusual for top Justice Department officials to publicly break with a president, with the most famous example being the 1973 "Saturday Night Massacre," when then-AG Elliot Richardson and his deputy quit after Richard Nixon asked them to fire the special prosecutor investigating him. On the Senate floor Monday night, Sen. Chuck Schumer called Yates' firing a "Monday night massacre" and praised her "brave act," reports Politico. The flip side of that sentiment comes from an unnamed Trump aide, who says, "She knew what she was doing and she knew she'd be fired. She just wanted the publicity." Yates was just days away from stepping down from the Justice Department after a 27-year career.

When Democrats split in 1968, with George Wallace running a Trumpesque third-party campaign, and again in 1972, when many party leaders barely supported George McGovern, the division hastened the transformation of Southern Democrats and blue-collar whites into reliable Nixon and Reagan voters. Would a Trump-induced schism have a similarly transformative effect? In certain ways the ingredients are there. Trump has laid bare real divisions in the party, particularly the wide divide between many working class Republicans and the G.O.P.’s agenda-setting elite. If you squint a little, his movement looks ideologically coherent, and it could have staying power as a kind of American analogue to Europe’s further-right parties: ethno-nationalist, protectionist, anti-immigration and anti-Islam, but more statist and secular than the current G.O.P. But when you try to imagine how this schism might play out in the long run, you run into two distinct realities. First, there is no Trump movement as yet; there is only Trump himself, his brand and his cult of personality, plus a parade of opportunists and hangers-on. This makes the Trump phenomenon very different from the Goldwater and McGovern candidacies, which were boosted by pre-existing movements on the right and left. It also makes it different from more recent insurgencies, the anti-war left and the Tea Party, which were built more on grassroots mobilization and donor networks than on a single standard bearer. Maybe a Trump movement is struggling toward self-consciousness, and in four to eight years it will be fully formed. But for now there aren’t Trump-like candidates challenging Republican politicians insufficiently committed to his cause (this has been a pretty easy year for incumbents, in fact), nor is there a Trumpish version of the netroots poised to be a player in Republican politics in 2018 or 2020. (The closest thing to a Trumpist activist cohort is the so-called “alt-right,” a mix of Jacobite enthusiasm and noxious racism that’s still mostly a Twitter and comment-thread phenomenon.) A few prominent Trumpistas do make a neat ideological fit with Trumpism as it might exist going forward — border hawks like Jeff Sessions and Jan Brewer, resentful populists like Sarah Palin, media bomb-throwers like Ann Coulter and the remaining Breitbart crew. But mostly he’s surrounded by has-been politicians looking for a second life, media personalities looking for an audience, and grifters looking to cash in (but I repeat myself). So when Trump is no longer a candidate for president, Sean Hannity will probably morph back into a partisan hatchet man, Ben Carson will go back to his speaking circuit, Newt Gingrich will find some new ideological coat to wear and Chris Christie will take a job chauffeuring Trump’s limo. Maybe they’ll all rally again if he runs again in 2020. But Trumpism will need new leaders and a real activist base if it’s going to be more than a tendency or a temptation going forward. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Then second, even if Trumpism finds the leadership and foot soldiers to fight a longer civil war, it’s very hard to see a classic realignment following. That’s because it’s hard to imagine either Republican faction — the Trumpist populist nationalists or the movement conservatives who currently oppose him — swinging into the Democratic coalition the way George Wallace’s voters eventually joined the G.O.P. and Rockefeller Republicans joined the Democrats. Yes, if Trump is the nominee some Republican foreign policy hawks, Wall Street types and suburban women will likely vote for Hillary; if Trump isn’t the nominee, some modest chunk of his blue-collar base might pull the lever for the Democrat. But overall the Obama-Hillary Democrats don’t want, and more importantly don’t think they need, the votes of either Trump-supporting working class whites who oppose immigration and affirmative action or Trump-hating religious conservatives or libertarians or Jack Kemp disciples. Given present demographic trends, they could be right. Nor would a not-Trump center-right party be obviously attractive to large constituencies on the center-left, unless it abandoned many of the very ideological principles currently inspiring resistance to Trump’s progress. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world. 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 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. So a Trumpian schism probably wouldn’t lead to a full realignment, a real re-sorting of the parties. Instead it would likely just create a lasting civil war within American conservatism, forging two provisional mini-parties — one more nationalist and populist, concentrated in the Rust Belt and the South, the other more like the Goldwater-to-Reagan G.O.P, concentrated in the high plains and Mountain West — whose constant warfare would deliver the presidency to the Democrats time and time again. Something somewhat like this happened in Canada in the 1990s, when the Conservative Party collapsed into two factional parties — the populist Reform Party in the west and a rump Progressive Conservative Party with the center-right leftovers. That schism produced thirteen unbroken years of Liberal Party rule, and it was only after a hard-won merger that it became possible for conservatives (led by Stephen Harper) to win the prime minister’s office once again. The lesson here for conservatives and Republicans is sobering. A rift is upon their party, and it won’t be healed before November. But if the party can’t be united under Trump, both his fans and his foes will probably face a stark choice in the aftermath: Rejoin or die. ||||| Donald Trump’s damage to the Republican Party, although already extensive, has barely begun. Republican quislings will multiply, slinking into support of the most anti-conservative presidential aspirant in their party’s history. These collaborationists will render themselves ineligible to participate in the party’s reconstruction. Ted Cruz’s announcement of his preferred running mate has enhanced the nomination process by giving voters pertinent information. They already know the only important thing about Trump’s choice: His running mate will be unqualified for high office because he or she will think Trump is qualified. Hillary Clinton’s optimal running mate might be Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a pro-labor populist whose selection would be balm for the bruised feelings of Bernie Sanders’s legions. Running mates rarely matter as electoral factors: In 2000, Al Gore got 43.2 percent of the North Carolina vote. In 2004, John Kerry, trying to improve upon Gore’s total there, ran with North Carolina Sen. John Edwards but received 43.6 percent. If, however, Brown were to help deliver Ohio for Clinton, the Republican path to 270 electoral votes would be narrower than a needle’s eye. Republican voters, particularly in Indiana and California, can, by supporting Cruz, make the Republican convention a deliberative body rather than one that merely ratifies decisions made elsewhere, some of them six months earlier. A convention’s sovereign duty is to choose a plausible nominee who has a reasonable chance to win, not to passively affirm the will of a mere plurality of voters recorded episodically in a protracted process. Trump would be the most unpopular nominee ever, unable to even come close to Mitt Romney’s insufficient support among women, minorities and young people. In losing disastrously, Trump probably would create down-ballot carnage sufficient to end even Republican control of the House. Ticket splitting is becoming rare in polarized America: In 2012, only 5.7 percent of voters supported a presidential candidate and a congressional candidate of opposite parties. This summer's political conventions could get heated – but it certainly wouldn't be the first time. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post) At least half a dozen Republican senators seeking reelection and Senate aspirants can hope to win if the person at the top of the Republican ticket loses their state by, say, only four points, but not if he loses by 10. A Democratic Senate probably would guarantee a Supreme Court with a liberal cast for a generation. If Clinton is inaugurated next Jan. 20, Merrick Garland probably will already be on the court — confirmed in a lame-duck Senate session — and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer will be 83, 80 and 78, respectively. The minority of people who pay close attention to politics includes those who define an ideal political outcome and pursue it, and those who focus on the worst possible outcome and strive to avoid it. The former experience the excitements of utopianism, the latter settle for prudence’s mild pleasure of avoiding disappointed dreams. Both sensibilities have their uses, but this is a time for prudence, which demands the prevention of a Trump presidency. Were he to be nominated, conservatives would have two tasks. One would be to help him lose 50 states — condign punishment for his comprehensive disdain for conservative essentials, including the manners and grace that should lubricate the nation’s civic life. Second, conservatives can try to save from the anti-Trump undertow as many senators, representatives, governors and state legislators as possible. It was 32 years after Jimmy Carter won 50.1 percent in 1976 that a Democrat won half the popular vote. Barack Obama won only 52.9 percent and then 51.1 percent, but only three Democrats — Andrew Jackson (twice), Franklin Roosevelt (four times) and Lyndon Johnson — have won more than 53 percent. Trump probably would make Clinton the fourth, and he would be a tonic for her party, undoing the extraordinary damage (13 Senate seats, 69 House seats, 11 governorships, 913 state legislative seats) Obama has done. If Trump is nominated, Republicans working to purge him and his manner from public life will reap the considerable satisfaction of preserving the identity of their 162-year-old party while working to see that they forgo only four years of the enjoyment of executive power. Six times since 1945 a party has tried, and five times failed, to secure a third consecutive presidential term. The one success — the Republicans’ 1988 election of George H.W. Bush — produced a one-term president. If Clinton gives her party its first 12 consecutive White House years since 1945, Republicans can help Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse, or someone else who has honorably recoiled from Trump, confine her to a single term. Read more from George F. Will’s archive or follow him on Facebook. ||||| WASHINGTON — This campaign season has offered an unexpected form of reality television entertainment: Watching the light of discovery and calculation in Donald Trump's eyes when he is presented with difficult policy issues, apparently for the very first time. Abortion is the current case in point. In the late 1990s, Trump supported the legality of partial-birth abortion. For a few hours, he endorsed criminal sanctions against women who have abortions. On this issue, Trump has been to the left of Harry Reid (who voted for a partial-birth abortion ban) and to the right of Mike Huckabee (who has consistently rejected punishment for women who have had abortions). And Trump is utterly incapable of defending either position. He shows no capacity for ethical reasoning — balancing claims about the moral and legal value of nascent life against claims about autonomy and choice. If that seems harsh, let's go to the transcript of MSNBC's Chris Matthews trying to corner Trump on criminalization. Asked if this is the logical consequence of pro-life views (it isn't), Trump doesn't advance an argument about religion, morality and the role of law (other than to call attention to Matthews' Catholicism). At the outset, Trump observes that "people in certain parts of the Republican Party and conservative Republicans would say, 'Yes, they should be punished.'" Trump eventually embraces what he thinks a social conservative would say. In fact, this is not the pro-life position. It is the left's stereotype of the pro-life position. "No pro-lifer would ever want to punish a woman who has chosen abortion," responded Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life. "This is against the very nature of what we are about. We invite a woman who has gone down this route to consider paths to healing, not punishment." Trump ended up hurting the pro-life cause by reviving a stereotype of harshness. And it is part of a pattern. In the immigration debate, the restrictionist side makes some serious arguments for prioritizing control of the border and for an immigration system that puts greater emphasis on skills. I generally don't find such arguments compelling, but they are worth debating. Trump has not, however, made this case in any serious or systematic way. Instead, he has embraced an anti-immigrant caricature. Illegal immigrants, he says, are disproportionately "criminals" and "rapists." The Mexican government is purposely sending criminals across the border. When two Trump supporters beat up a homeless Hispanic man in Boston, Trump called them "passionate." He retweeted that Jeb Bush "has to like the Mexican illegals because of his wife." When Trump eventually loses — as he certainly will in the primaries, at the convention or the general election — the movement to restrict immigration will be left as a stereotype of exclusion and bigotry. Trump has had a similar, malignant influence on debates concerning the war against terrorism. There is no doubt that America and Europe face a heightened threat from returning Islamic State fighters, and from homegrown terrorists inspired by the Islamic State. Additional measures will be required — in the Middle East and at home — to pre-empt these threats. But Trump has chosen to inhabit a cruel and counterproductive parody of toughness. He calls for banning all Muslim immigrants. He would conduct the war against terrorism with war crimes, such as killing the families of terrorists. He calls Syrian refugees fleeing violence the "ultimate Trojan horse." He entertains the possibility of using nuclear weapons against the Islamic State — which would, of course, also kill everyone the Islamic State oppresses. This stereotype of strength actively undermines the war against terrorism by alienating Muslim allies and cultivating mistrust in Muslim communities. For many of Trump's supporters, this extreme and unpredictable use of language is part of the appeal. He doesn't employ the careful words of a politician. He is so appealingly unprepared. So refreshingly ignorant. So disarmingly half-baked. But the durability of Trump's appeal creates a conundrum for many Republicans. For decades, some of us have argued that the liberal stereotype of Republicans as extreme, dim and intolerant is inaccurate and unfair. But here is a candidate for president who fully embodies the liberal stereotype of Republicans — who thinks this is the way a conservative should sound — and has found support from a committed plurality of the party. If the worst enemies of conservatism were to construct a Frankenstein figure that represents the worst elements of right-wing politics, Donald Trump would be it. But it is Republicans who are giving him life. And the damage is already deep. Michael Gerson's email address is [email protected]. ||||| The conservative intelligentsia (not necessarily a contradiction in terms) is being stupid about Donald Trump Donald John TrumpSessions unveils 'zero tolerance' policy at southern border NY attorney general resigns after allegations of physical abuse Trump Jr. mocks Schneiderman after reports he abused women MORE. And in the process, they are revealing their biases against democracy and the will of the people. ADVERTISEMENT We can get all Mencken about the American people (“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard”), but the bottom line is that you either trust the democratic process or you don’t. Trump is winning in his presidential primary and winning big. Instead of examining why he has been so successful, the leading lights of the Republican Party continue to bash away at the real estate tycoon and his supporters. Here is Mike Gerson: “If the worst enemies of conservatism were to construct a Frankenstein figure that represents the worst elements of right-wing politics, Donald Trump would be it. But it is Republicans who are giving him life. And the damage is already deep.” And George Will: “Donald Trump’s damage to the Republican Party, although already extensive, has barely begun. Republican quislings will multiply, slinking into support of the most anti-conservative presidential aspirant in their party’s history. These collaborationists will render themselves ineligible to participate in the party’s reconstruction.” And Ross Douthat: “That clamor is loudest from the Trumpistas and their dear leader. Donald Trump is clearly running to be an American caudillo, not the president of a constitutional republic, and his entire campaign is a cult of personality in the style of (the pro-Trump) Vladimir Putin.” And of course, David Brooks: “Donald Trump now looks set to be the Republican presidential nominee. So for those of us appalled by this prospect — what are we supposed to do? Well, not what the leaders of the Republican Party are doing. They’re going down meekly and hoping for a quiet convention. They seem blithely unaware that this is a Joe McCarthy moment. People will be judged by where they stood at this time.” To these so-called smart people, I say: Stop being so stupid. Trump will be the nominee. He will run a tough campaign against Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonHow social pressures drive the partisan education gap Press: Haspel wrong choice for CIA Armed Services chair wants White House to coordinate effort against ‘malign foreign influence’ MORE — tougher than Ted Cruz Rafael (Ted) Edward CruzCambridge Analytica ordered to hand over data on US voter GOP faces internal battle over changing Senate rules Overnight Finance: Unemployment rate lowest since 2000 | Trump asks China to slash trade deficit 0B by 2020 | NJ gov signs bill to skirt GOP tax law provision MORE or Jeb Bush. He will scramble the map in ways we don’t quite understand. He is plenty smart, and while he might not be qualified in the conventional sense, he is more qualified than some of the other folks that our so-called smart set thought could do a good job. Remember when Bill Kristol thought Sarah Palin would make a fine president? So why has Trump, on a relatively small budget and with a tiny campaign staff, done so well, while his competitors have failed so miserably? Well, first, because he is a real outsider who represents real change. So many voters are so completely fed up with the political class (and the conservative intelligentsia that supports them) that they saw Trump as the only candidate who could blow up the status quo. I know many of those who voted for Trump, and they are by no means stupid, irrational, racist or anti-democratic. They are frustrated with politics as usual and they are taking their constitutional rights seriously by voting for change. Second, Trump says what many of us have come to believe is true: that the Iraq War was a tragic mistake that shouldn’t be replicated. He was the only candidate to be so explicit in his denunciation, and I think it helped him with a big chunk of voters. Third, he has a clear message on the economy that resonates: The middle class is getting screwed because the political class is looking out for their interests rather than for the broader interests of the American people. From being open to increasing taxes on the very wealthy to expressing concerns about trade deals to promising to protect Social Security, Trump is stating clearly that he will change the direction of the American economy. I am not of the opinion that a Trump candidacy will do long-lasting damage to the party or the country. I guess that’s why I am not part of the conservative intelligentsia. Feehery is president of QGA Public Affairs and blogs at www.thefeeherytheory.com. He served as spokesman to former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), as communications director to former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) when he was majority whip and as speechwriter to former Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.).

The "conservative intelligentsia" is anything but intelligent when it comes to Donald Trump, writes John Feehery at the Hill. Among those he calls out is David Brooks of the New York Times, who last week called Trump's candidacy a "Joe McCarthy moment" for the party. But Feehery also cites comments of a similar nature from the likes of George Will (see here), Michael Gerson (here), and Ross Douthat (here), all of whom seem to think that Trump is the personification of evil who will do long-term damage to the GOP unless stopped. "To these so-called smart people, I say: Stop being so stupid," writes Feehery. This opposition to Trump reveals "their biases against democracy and the will of the people," he argues. Instead of knocking him down, they should pay more attention to why Trump is so popular, writes Feehery, who provides some theories of his own: Trump is a "real outsider who represents real change," he has explicitly denounced the Iraq War as a mistake, and his economic message ("the middle class is getting screwed by the political class") is resonating. Most Trump supporters "are by no means stupid, irrational, racist or anti-democratic," writes Feehery. They're just tired of the status quo and see Trump as the only candidate who can destroy it. Click for his full column. (Or for Andrew Sullivan's opposing view.)

The Senate's emphasis on individual and minority rights, reflected in both its standing rules and chamber custom, can make it challenging for the chamber to achieve its various goals in a timely manner. For this reason, the Senate routinely chooses to set aside its standing rules by unanimous consent. This is done formally through UC agreements, which in many cases outline the terms under which specific legislation will be considered. Under recent practice, these UC agreements sometimes include a provision imposing a 60-vote requirement for approval of amendments or legislation, instead of the simple majority vote ordinarily required in the Senate. These amendments or measures are sometimes of a controversial nature with potential to be subjected to extended consideration or even a filibuster. By incorporating a 60-vote threshold, such UC agreements avoid the multiple requirements associated with Senate Rule XXII, both for invoking cloture and for consideration under cloture. Such UC agreements ensure that a measure will not be successful without the same level of super-majority support that would be required for cloture by stipulating that if the 60-vote threshold is not reached, the matter will be disposed of. As with all UC agreements, once agreed to, they can be altered only by the adoption of a further UC agreement. Several possible effects could result from the Senate choosing to impose a 60-vote threshold for the passage of legislation. First, for cases in which a large majority of Senators is in favor of or opposed to the question, the time that would ordinarily be required to invoke cloture can be avoided. Once a cloture petition has been submitted, it must lay over until the second calendar day that the Senate is in session before a vote on cloture occurs. For a cloture vote to be successful, in most cases three-fifths of all Senators must vote in the affirmative (i.e., 60 votes if there are no vacancies). If the cloture vote is successful, another 30 hours of consideration are in order before a vote on the underlying business must occur. Incorporating the 60-vote threshold into a UC agreement allows the Senate to bypass these time consuming requirements. Second, for cases in which a large majority either in favor of or against the question cannot be assumed, the 60-vote threshold accomplishes the same purpose as a filibuster by preventing or delaying passage, but without requiring the Senate to engage in extended debate. Thus, surrendering the right to filibuster may be more palatable if Senators are confident a measure will not pass without super-majority support. Another reason that a 60-vote threshold might be included in a UC agreement is that it presents Senators with an opportunity to vote directly on the underlying policy issue. Votes on cloture often fail and consequently a vote on the actual measure or amendment may never occur. The 60-vote threshold in a UC agreement has the effect of bypassing the procedural vote to grant Senators a direct vote on the policy issue at hand. Lastly, in many of these 60-vote threshold UC agreements, it is a pair (or group) of amendments or measures that are jointly held to the 60-vote requirement. Many of the pairs (or groups) are competing options for the same policy issue. This allows the Senate to debate and choose between contending alternatives in a timely and controlled manner. Although examples of UC agreements placing a similar 60-vote threshold provisions can be found dating from at least the early 1990s, the practice has increased in frequency over the last four years. Unanimous consent agreements that impose a 60-vote threshold may be agreed to at any time, either in advance, or during consideration. It is notable that unlike Senate rules requiring super majorities, which typically are framed in terms of a fraction either of the membership or those voting (e.g., two-thirds, three-fifths), these UC agreements explicitly state the number of votes required. Given that practices generally specify disposition for a question that achieves a majority vote, but not a super-majority vote imposed by unanimous consent, the language of these UC agreements typically provides for disposition of the amendment or measure if it fails to achieve the required 60 votes. Typically, the matter is withdrawn, but it could alternately be laid on the table or returned to the calendar For example, in one UC agreement, the Senate agreed that "... two amendments be subject to a 60 affirmative vote threshold, and that if neither achieves that threshold, then it be withdrawn." Unanimous consent agreements including a 60-vote threshold may be used not just to avoid the steps associated with invoking cloture, but also to avoid a separate vote on waiving a point of order raised under the Congressional Budget Act. In the Senate, most points of order under the Budget Act may be waived by a vote of at least three-fifths of all Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 votes if there are no vacancies). In one UC agreement, the Senate agreed to a 60-vote threshold for the passage of a conference report stipulating that a vote on the waiving of a Budget Act point of order also be treated as a simultaneous vote on adoption.

The Senate frequently enters into unanimous consent agreements (sometimes referred to as "UC agreements" or "time agreements") that establish procedures for the consideration of legislation that the Senate is considering or will soon consider. In recent practice, such unanimous consent agreements have sometimes included a provision that would require a 60-vote threshold to be met for amendments or legislation to be considered agreed to, rather than the simple majority ordinarily required. These amendments or measures may be of a controversial nature with the potential for causing a filibuster. By incorporating a 60-vote threshold, such UC agreements avoid the multiple requirements imposed by Senate Rule XXII for invoking cloture, while preserving the same requirement for super-majority support. This report will be updated each session of Congress.

Greg Nelson has bought 343 items from the online giant since 2014. But after sending 37 back he is now blocked from using it and can’t reclaim his credit balance Computer programmer Greg Nelson is a self-confessed Amazon addict, buying hundreds of items on its site. But after sending back 37 items of 343 purchased, the online giant has blocked his account with immediate effect – and told him he would lose a gift card balance that he had on the account. He insists there was a genuine reason for all his returns over the past two years – the goods were either faulty, damaged or not as described. However, Amazon has refused to let him continue buying from the site without giving him, in his words, a “proper explanation”. Amazon told Nelson that the money held on his account as a gift card balance is lost to him, as gift vouchers can only be used on the site and have no transferable value. His case will alarm anyone blocked by Amazon who has spent a lot of money building up a large library of Kindle books or other digital purchases, as they will fear being unable to access much of it (see below). Customers who may, for example, have been given a £200 gift voucher for Christmas, and then had their account closed before they spent the money, would lose the lot under the terms of the policy. I can’t sing Yodel’s praises – they lost my £400 item and only offered me £20 compensation Read more Nelson says: “As a previously fervently loyal fan of Amazon who has been a customer since 2002, I understand that it is trying to protect its business – however I find its actions in this situation totally egregious. I could understand if there were evidence that I had somehow tried to abuse the system, but I haven’t. Of course, Amazon can refuse to serve whom it likes, but surely it cannot legally keep gift card balances and other purchased goods which have already been paid for by the customer – despite what any potentially unfair small print might say?” He emailed Amazon to point out the unfairness in closing accounts based on unpublished limits of legitimate returns, but says he received a standard response refusing to reopen his account. He has also questioned whether it is legal for the internet giant to refuse to refund a customer’s unspent gift balance. Nelson is the latest person to fall foul of the company’s policy of banning customers who exercise their consumer rights to return goods. A spokesman for Amazon told Guardian Money he could not discuss Nelson’s case, except to say the company would not reopen his account. “Our goal is to deliver the best experience for the millions of customers who shop with us. In a tiny fraction of cases we are forced to close accounts where we identify extreme account abuse. This decision is only taken after we have reviewed the account carefully and tried to work with the customer over an extended time period to resolve any issues,” he said. The former distance selling rules, now part of the consumer contracts regulations, allow online shoppers to return an item within 14 days without giving a reason for a full refund, provided the item is in the original packaging. Amazon voluntarily extends this policy so items can be returned inside 30 days, but acts against customers who do it too often. I could understand if there were evidence that I had tried to abuse the system, but I haven’t Greg Nelson Items that are damaged or not as described, or simply don’t last as they should, are all often sent back by unhappy consumers, as they would return an item to a physical shop. Although relatively rare, Amazon has been cancelling customers accounts since at least 2008, and in some cases has even reportedly cancelled the accounts of other family members living at the same address. In November last year Money highlighted the case of Nigel Colledge from Kingskerswell, South Devon, who similarly had his account cancelled despite spending thousands of pounds with the firm. He bought 246 items in 2015 alone, and had been a customer since 2006. The self-confessed electronics junkie, who prided himself on having all the latest gizmos, said the majority of items he returned were high-value electronic items that had failed. He had chosen to cancel problematic purchases rather than wait for Amazon to simply exchange the item. It is unclear whether that would have saved him from being banned as Amazon refuses to explain the policy, or to differentiate between returns made for genuine or other reasons. In January Amazon closed down another customer, Katy Kilmarton, after she returned 30 out of 112 items bought. She also lost a £170 gift card balance and the remaining months of her Amazon Prime membership, which costs £79 a year. Money spent several hours on the Amazon website this week, but could find no reference to the policy. We have repeatedly asked the company what constitutes too many returns, but it has refused to divulge the figure. Nelson points out that both the customer and the company have no control over deliveries once they leave the warehouse, and asks if it would ban a customer who just happened to have several deliveries damaged by the courier. While thousands of UK consumers boycotted Amazon over its controversial tax situation, many disabled and elderly customers – and those who live in rural areas away from big shops – have come to depend on the company’s slick online operation. Are they now going to have to accept damaged or wrongfully described items to avoid the risk of being banned, asks Nelson. Amazon has cancelled my account and now I can’t access Audible books Read more What happens to purchased items Having an Amazon account blocked could make life difficult for Kindle users. Although you will still be able to view the books you’ve already bought, and can buy more, users had better hope they don’t have a problem in the future. Amazon says it sends customers whose account it is closing a weblink that allows them to view previous digital orders. They can also check whether purchased items are still in warranty. How customers who have bought electronic items that develop a subsequent fault within the warranty period will fare is less clear. When their account is closed they are told: “Please do not make contact through the standard customer service channels again, as they will no longer be able to assist you.” When your account is closed you also lose access to the Amazon Prime on-demand film streaming service, and if you have paid £79 for an annual subscription the money is lost. The DVD-sending service LoveFilm is also owned by Amazon, as is the popular talking books service Audible; books are downloaded so anyone who has had their account closed will keep past purchases. LoveFilm users will have to join their local library. Comics fans who signed up to download site Comixology, taken over by Amazon in 2014, will also be looking elsewhere. How easy it is to set up an alternative account remains to be seen. Most people will simply use a partner’s account. If you choose to close your account you lose access to everything. This article contains affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a reader clicks through and makes a purchase. All our journalism is independent and is in no way influenced by any advertiser or commercial initiative. The links are powered by Skimlinks. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that Skimlinks cookies will be set. More information. ||||| A computer programmer and self-proclaimed Amazon addict named Greg Nelson has been banned from using Amazon UK after returning 37 of the 343 items he has purchased over the course of two years. According to TheGuardian, Amazon told the programmer any remaining gift card or credit balances on his account would be lost to him as they can only be used on the website and do not have a transferable value. Nelson insists there was a genuine reason for each and every return he made over the past two years. The products were either damaged, faulty, or did not work as they were described to. The programmer claims that his account was closed immediately and he was not allowed to continue buying from the website. In his words, he believes Amazon did not give him a “proper explanation” as to why they suddenly closed his account. Nelson has stated that he respects the company’s rights to protect itself, but closing his account was unfair. “As a previously fervently loyal fan of Amazon who has been a customer since 2002, I understand that it is trying to protect its business – however I find its actions in this situation totally egregious. I could understand if there were evidence that I had somehow tried to abuse the system, but I haven’t. Of course, Amazon can refuse to serve whom it likes, but surely it cannot legally keep gift card balances and other purchased goods which have already been paid for by the customer – despite what any potentially unfair small print might say?” Nelson proceeded to email the company and point out how unfair he felt their actions were in regard to his account. In the email, Nelson told the company it was unfair to close his account based on unpublished return limits. He went on to question whether or not it was even legal for the company to refuse to refund any unspent gift card balances he had lingering on his account. While Nelson is the latest customer to have his account closed by Amazon after exercising his right to return goods, he is certainly not the only one. Amazon closed my account, just renewed Prime on 2/16 https://t.co/vcyellSdYg — David Ellis (@DavidEl96566078) March 10, 2016 @amazon closed my account due to "unreasonable amount of returns" Of my 236 orders I placed this year, I returned 27 pic.twitter.com/06c4cVSgdf — James C. L. (@James_C_L) March 5, 2016 Like 2 weeks ago I added $20 gift card to my Amazon account, right after that my account for closed. They never opened my account back up — Wersh (@Wersh) February 17, 2016 In January 2016, a customer named Katy Kilmarton reported that Amazon closed her account after she returned 30 of the 112 items she purchased. In closing her account, she lost a gift card balance of £170, which is about $246, as well as the remaining months of her Prime membership. Kilmarton claimed that her remaining gift balance was a refund for a previous purchase that the company gave back to her as a gift card instead of refunding her debit card. Kilmarton stated that she understood the company had the right to close her account, but felt the company should refund her the remaining gift card balance as she didn’t understand how taking it could be legal. Understanding the Return Policy A representative from TheGuardian attempted to reach out to a spokesperson from Amazon only to be told the company would not discuss the customer’s case other than confirm they would not be reopening his account. “Our goal is to deliver the best experience for the millions of customers who shop with us. In a tiny fraction of cases we are forced to close accounts where we identify extreme account abuse. This decision is only taken after we have reviewed the account carefully and tried to work with the customer over an extended time period to resolve any issues.” According to Amazon’s website, customers are allowed to return most new and unopened products for a full refund within 30 days of their delivery date. The website goes on to say the company will even pay any return shipping costs if the reason for the return is the fault of the company. What Happens to Kindle Library and Digital Purchases? While the banning of an Amazon account does not block a customer from viewing his or her Kindle library and/or digital purchases, it does make things more challenging. After an Amazon customer account is closed, the customer will be told not to contact customer service anymore. “Please do not make contact through the standard customer service channels again, as they will no longer be able to assist you.” This means that while you will be able to access your Kindle library and your digital purchases, you will not be able to contact Amazon’s customer service should a problem with your library or your digital purchases arise as they will not help you without an active account. When Amazon closes an account, the customer account also loses access to Amazon Prime streaming services. This means the money paid for the subscription is lost. The DVD-sending service LoveFilm, popular book talking service Audible, and Comixology will also be limited. Customers will be able to keep anything they have already downloaded. However, they will not be able to download anything else. TechWalls advises Amazon customers to keep their return rates under 10 percent of total purchases to avoid their account being closed for abusing the return policy. Making a new Amazon customer account, however, remains a simple task. A lot of individuals will just use a spouse or family member’s account after their account is closed. Customers just need to keep in mind that closing an account means losing everything via Amazon that is connected to that account but has not been downloaded to a device. [Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images] ||||| If you are an Amazon shopper, you must be very happy with their service and convenient return policy, especially when you buy items shipped and sold by Amazon. They even pay for return shipping if your received item is defective or doesn’t match the description. However, it doesn’t mean that you can abuse the system and use it as a try-out/rental service. Many Amazon accounts have been suspended when users request refunds excessively and there is no way to appeal the decision. So, what is the return limit and how to avoid being banned by Amazon? When will Amazon ban your account? What’s the return limit? Amazon is collecting data of all your transactions and they will stop doing business with you when they lose money. Till now, no one knows the exact return limit. In my case, I shop a lot on Amazon in the last 5 years, I sign up for Prime membership, and spend around $1200 per month on the site. I buy almost everything on the site, from cheap products like groceries, books, toilet paper to expensive laptops and electronics. That means I also return more when they don’t meet my expectation. In the last 2 months, I returned 2-3 items each month and the value of refunded items was higher than the value of what I kept. That’s the reason why I received a warning from Amazon: “We’re writing to apologize for the number of issues you’ve experienced with your shipments. Your correspondences with us indicate you’ve required refunds on a majority of orders for a number of reasons.” They also said that I had an unusually high rate of problems and they will evaluate each account on a case-by-case basis and might close my account if necessary. Fortunately, this is just a warning and Amazon want to work with me to avoid the worst case. They recommended to comply with Amazon policies or both of Amazon buying and selling accounts will be banned. I tried to access my order history on the website but it failed to log in or redirected me to the digital content library. Fortunately, I managed to check my orders in the Amazon app on my phone. In the last 6 months, I ordered 104 items and returned 18 items, so the rate of return is approximately 17% of the total number of purchased items. Besides, the total value of returned items is just over 10% of total purchases. On the Returns Center page, Amazon mentions that they send full refund for new, unopened items sold and fulfilled by Amazon within 30 days. Many of the items I returned were no longer in brand new condition, so this might be another reason they decided to penalize my account. I sent Amazon an email to appeal the decision but they decided not to restore my account and said the decision is final. Read also: Update 1: My wife returned a bicycle purchased in her account. Just a few days later, Amazon decided to cancel both of the accounts for not meeting the terms of Conditions of Use agreement. They said I cannot open a new account or use another account to order on the site. All open orders were canceled, I just could access digital content purchased in the account. I had over $100 in my gift card balance and Amazon agreed to send me the refund, I received a check in my mailbox after 1 week. Update 2: Since my Amazon.com account is banned, all other services including Amazon Seller and Amazon Associates accounts were also closed. After contacting the customer service and explaining how I was a valuable member, they investigated and sent me another email. I’m very sorry that I’ve had to close your Associates account with Associate ID because we’ve been told the attached Amazon.com account will be closed within 24 hours. If you should ever wish to reconsider, we’d certainly welcome you back to the program with a different email address. You can apply for a new Associates account anytime. Your unpaid balance due to you will be paid out 60 days following the end of this month. You’ll continue to receive monthly payment reports and occasional announcements regarding tools, and features for up to 60 days after the end of this month. We look forward to seeing you again. How to Avoid Being Banned When you receive the warning email, you should immediately check your Amazon account to find out unusual account activities. If you return too many items lately, you should have good reasons and don’t forget to take some pictures if the products are defective or different from what you ordered. Then you should reply to [email protected] and explain what went wrong with your orders. In case you are abusing the system and returning items without legit reasons, you should stop immediately and also send them an email saying you will be more careful buying products in the future. Try to keep the return rate lower than 10%. After sending them an email, I received a polite response from Amazon and seemingly my account will be alright. Hello, Thanks for writing to us and we are sorry for any misunderstandings with the email you received. We’re concerned about the activity on your account and want to do all that we can to avoid the inconvenience you experience having to make frequent and possibly avoidable returns of the items you purchase from Amazon.com and with any delivery issues with your orders. We contacted you so we could better understand the activity on your account and learn how to improve your shopping experience. Your account remains open and available for your use. If you have any concerns regarding your orders, please contact our customer service and they will help you accordingly. We appreciate your understanding, and hope to see you again soon. Best regards, Account Specialist In a recent statement, Amazon mentioned that they are forced to close accounts when they detect extreme abuse but it only happens after they carefully review the account and work with the customer over an extended period of time. Have you got any issue with your Amazon account? Share with us in a comment below.

Returned a few purchases on Amazon? Then take note of Greg Nelson, a computer programmer who saw his account canceled after he returned 37 of 343 items, the Guardian reports. "I could understand if there were evidence that I had somehow tried to abuse the system, but I haven't," says Nelson. He claims the returns were all justified, but Amazon UK simply axed his account and deleted any remaining gift card balance. Customers who lose their account also lose access to Amazon Prime streaming services and downloading on Kindle. "I find [Amazon's] actions in this situation totally egregious," adds Nelson, who questions whether the site can legally swipe a customer's unspent balance. Questioned by the Guardian, an Amazon spokesman said that "in a tiny fraction of cases we are forced to close accounts where we identify extreme account abuse." So what constitutes extreme? Amazon UK allows customers to return items within 30 days but refuses to say how many returns are too many. Tech Walls advises customers to keep return rates at under 10%—a threshold that may explain Nelson's canceled account and those of two others (described in this tweet and this posting on Amazon). "Making a new Amazon customer account, however, remains a simple task," says Inquisitr. "A lot of individuals will just use a spouse or family member’s account after their account is closed." (In other Amazon news, read about the company's unusual tactic for curbing warehouse theft.)

Scroll down for BP's exploration plan The massive gush of oil spilling from the site of the rig that exploded last week exceeds the worst-case scenario predicted by oil giant BP when it filed its exploration plan with the government. The scale of the disaster is also having political repercussions, putting lawmakers who support offshore drilling on the defensive. Yesterday, the estimated size of the spill quintupled to over 210,000 gallons a day. In BP's exploration plan, which allowed it to avoid filing a more detailed site-specific plan, the company outlined a worst-case scenario of 162,000 gallons a day. In addition, the federal agency with oversight of offshore drilling, the Interior Department's Minerals and Management Service did not require BP to file a "scenario for potential blowout," referring to the sudden release of oil from a well. According to the exploration plan obtained by Huffington Post, an MMS official certified that BP "has the capacity to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge." But after the explosion, the scale of the accident required BP to get assistance from the Coast Guard, other federal agencies and other oil companies such as Shell, which is sending half a dozen vessels to help with the clean-up effort. Spokespersons for BP and MMS did not return calls for comment. Since the explosion, during which 11 workers were thrown overboard and are presumed dead, federal officials and members of Congress have launched several investigations into the incident and the role of BP and drilling contractor TransOcean. Sen. Mary Landrieu, a longtime supporter of offshore oil drilling, has called for a full investigation into the incident. But in recent days, she has preached caution. Landrieu says that the incident should "not be used inappropriately" to halt President Obama's recent push for expansion of offshore drilling. "Both advocates and critics of offshore drilling have recognized the significance of this tragedy... we cannot stop energy production in our country because of this incident," Ms. Landrieu said. In two previous congressional hearings, Landrieu minimized the chance of such a massive accident occurring on an offshore oil rig and also minimized the impact of any oil spill, saying it would hardly fill one-third of the reflecting pool outside of the Capitol. At a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last November to discuss the environmental impact of offshore oil drilling, Landrieu dismissed concerns about the chances of a blowout -- which occurred off the coast of Australia last August -- happening in the Gulf of Mexico: You said it was the largest spill in Australia's history. It's true. It leaked 823,000 gallons of oil. As Mr. Cruickshank testified, it wouldn't even be allowed in this country because it doesn't stand up to our strict environmental rules. But let's say we had messed up and allowed it to produce oil off of our shores, it would be one-third of the amount necessary to fill the Reflecting Pool outside of this Capitol. It's the largest spill in the history of Australia. It's a pretty long history. The rig that blew didn't meet our standards but if we had it slip through and we had allowed it to drill, the oil that spilled would fill up a third of the Reflecting Pool. At a hearing last month held by the same committee to discuss drilling, Landrieu repeated her line about the reflecting pool, adding: I mean, just the gallons are so minuscule compared to the benefits of U.S. strength and security, the benefits of job creation and energy security. So while there are risks associated with everything, I think you understand that they are quite, quite minimal. HuffPost asked Landrieu whether she still stands by her comments and whether she supports new safety regulations proposed by the federal agency that oversees offshore drilling, which are opposed by the oil industry, as first reported by HuffPost on Monday. In response, the senator's office said she does support MMS's proposed safety rules and issued this statement: Senator Landrieu has been very supportive of Secretary Salazar and believes that the MMS and the Coast Guard have generally been good stewards of human safety with respect to the oil and gas industry. The Senator has said repeatedly that what happened in the Gulf last week is a tragedy and should be fully investigated to find out what went wrong and how it can be prevented in the future. But she also firmly believes that this accident should not be used as an excuse to abandon plans to make America more energy secure. Consider the alternative: to stop all domestic offshore drilling. That would only export America's oil and gas production activities -- and the attendant jobs that go with it -- overseas to countries that have neither the will, nor the resources, to address the environmental impacts. Even with the development of alternative energy sources, the United States will still need oil into the foreseeable future. With no offshore domestic production, that oil would be tankered from overseas into the United States. The one thing we do know is that such a policy would do nothing to protect our shores. In fact, the National Academies of Science has found that while drilling and extraction account for less than 1 percent of all the oil that enters the marine environment, tankering accounts for four times that much. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a longtime supporter of drilling offshore and in her state, will hold a hearing next week on federal Outer Continental Shelf development plans: "As we look to expand exploration off our nation's coasts, it's critical that we take every possible precaution to guard against similar accidents," Murkowski said. "It's imperative that we find out everything we can about what went wrong on the Horizon." Read BP's exploration plan: ||||| With news from the spill in the Gulf of Mexico oil rig getting worse—a top Coast Guard official warned it could end up being “one of the most significant oil spills in U.S. history”—questions are beginning to be asked about how it happened, and how it could have been prevented. As The Wall Street Journal reported this morning, the oil rig lacked a device—known as an acoustic control—that would’ve served as a safeguard of last resort. While the effectiveness of the $500,000 device is debated, the Journal points out that it is used by other oil-producing nations, including Brazil and Norway. Regulators in the U.S. were also considering requiring it a few years ago, but after industry objections decided that the devices were expensive and needed more study. Are you a Gulf Coast resident? Do you have direct experience as a laborer, consultant, or contractor on offshore oil rigs? Or insight into how safety and emergency response decisions are made and implemented? Write reporter Abrahm Lustgarten (if needed, you can speak anonymously). So which regulator oversees rigs and made that decision? It was the Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service, an agency that has had a spotty record over the past few years. In 2008, we pointed out that MMS was in quite a bit of trouble for ethical violations by its officials. The scandal involved sex, drugs and (quite literally) sleeping with the very industry it was regulating. Here’s how The New York Times summarized the government’s investigation: The investigation also concluded that several of the officials “frequently consumed alcohol at industry functions, had used cocaine and marijuana, and had sexual relationships with oil and gas company representatives.” The investigation separately found that the program’s manager mixed official and personal business. In sometimes lurid detail, the report also accuses him of having intimate relations with two subordinates, one of whom regularly sold him cocaine. That hasn’t been the end of MMS’s troubles. According to an audit earlier this month by the Government Accountability Office, the regulator has hardly been a straight shooter on offshore drilling and the risks involved. The GAO found that MMS withheld data on offshore drilling in Alaska from regional staff members at the agency involved in environmental analyses. The report also found that MMS lacked sufficient guidelines to properly analyze the risks of drilling in the region. “We found considerable variation among MMS’s ... regions in how they assess what constitutes a ‘significant’ environmental impact,” reads the report (PDF). And on the withholding of data: “Some of its own scientists have alleged that their findings have been suppressed.” (In a formal response to the report, the Department of the Interior said it “generally agrees” with the findings.) The Project on Government Oversight, a nonprofit watchdog, told us regulation wasn’t a priority for MMS. “It was an agency that was very strapped in its human resources, and essentially the priority for the agency was on production rather than on regulation and oversight,” said Mandy Smithberger of POGO. She added that under Ken Salazar, who became secretary of the interior in January 2009, this may be changing, “but we have not seen material changes so far.” One step in the process that oil companies must go through to get approval for drilling involves submitting an exploration plan that lays out worst-case scenarios. The Huffington Post points out that MMS did not require BP—which owns the well that blew up—to file a plan for reacting to a “potential blowout,” meaning an uncontrollable spill. According to The Huffington Post’s reporting, the more limited plan BP filed with MMS predicted that if worse came to worst, a spill would release 162,000 gallons of oil. The Deepwater Horizon spill has already exceeded that prediction. That doesn’t make MMS look very good, since one of its officials vouched for BP’s plan at the time. From The Huffington Post again: An MMS official certified that BP “has the capacity to respond, to the maximum extent practicable, to a worst-case discharge, or a substantial threat of such a discharge.” But after the explosion, the scale of the accident required BP to get assistance from the Coast Guard, other federal agencies and other oil companies such as Shell, which is sending half a dozen vessels to help with the clean-up effort. Maybe that $500,000 safeguard (the one that MMS said should be studied) doesn’t seem so expensive anymore, compared with the $6 million per day BP is now paying in cleanup costs. We spoke with two people involved in the industry, who have also worked with MMS, who said that the branch of MMS that deals with safety inspections has a solid reputation, unlike the scandal-ridden part that deals with collecting royalties from oil companies. “They have a lot of good people doing their best,” said Tyler Priest, a professor at the University of Houston. Priest said he sits on an MMS advisory committee and has done studies for the agency. “I’ve seen what they do up close, and it is a quality organization.” We have called MMS and will include its response as soon as we get it. Ryan Knutson contributed reporting to this story. ||||| (See Corrections & Amplifications item below.) Associated Press A worker looks over an oil boom as it collects oil from the leaking Deepwater Horizon pipeline in the Gulf of Mexico. The disaster has been sending 1,000 barrels of oil a day gushing into the sea. The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills. The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig last week. The accident has led to one of the largest ever oil spills in U.S. water and the loss of 11 lives. On Wednesday federal investigators said the disaster is now releasing 5,000 barrels of oil a day into the Gulf, up from original estimates of 1,000 barrels a day. U.S. regulators don't mandate use of the remote-control device on offshore rigs, and the Deepwater Horizon, hired by oil giant BP PLC, didn't have one. With the remote control, a crew can attempt to trigger an underwater valve that shuts down the well even if the oil rig itself is damaged or evacuated. The efficacy of the devices is unclear. Major offshore oil-well blowouts are rare, and it remained unclear Wednesday evening whether acoustic switches have ever been put to the test in a real-world accident. When wells do surge out of control, the primary shut-off systems almost always work. Remote control systems such as the acoustic switch, which have been tested in simulations, are intended as a last resort. Nevertheless, regulators in two major oil-producing countries, Norway and Brazil, in effect require them. Norway has had acoustic triggers on almost every offshore rig since 1993. The U.S. considered requiring a remote-controlled shut-off mechanism several years ago, but drilling companies questioned its cost and effectiveness, according to the agency overseeing offshore drilling. The agency, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service, says it decided the remote device wasn't needed because rigs had other back-up plans to cut off a well. The U.K., where BP is headquartered, doesn't require the use of acoustic triggers. On all offshore oil rigs, there is one main switch for cutting off the flow of oil by closing a valve located on the ocean floor. Many rigs also have automatic systems, such as a "dead man" switch as a backup that is supposed to close the valve if it senses a catastrophic failure aboard the rig. As a third line of defense, some rigs have the acoustic trigger: It's a football-sized remote control that uses sound waves to communicate with the valve on the seabed floor and close it. An acoustic trigger costs about $500,000, industry officials said. The Deepwater Horizon had a replacement cost of about $560 million, and BP says it is spending $6 million a day to battle the oil spill. On Wednesday, crews set fire to part of the oil spill in an attempt to limit environmental damage. Some major oil companies, including Royal Dutch Shell PLC and France's Total SA, sometimes use the device even where regulators don't call for it. Transocean Ltd., which owned and operated the Deepwater Horizon and the shut-off valve, declined to comment on why a remote-control device wasn't installed on the rig or to speculate on whether such a device might have stopped the spill. A BP spokesman said the company wouldn't speculate on whether a remote control would have made a difference. Much still isn't known about what caused the problems in Deepwater Horizon's well, nearly a mile beneath the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. It went out of control, sending oil surging through pipes to the surface and causing a fire that ultimately sank the rig. Unmanned submarines that arrived hours after the explosion have been unable to activate the shut-off valve on the seabed, called a blowout preventer. Enlarge Image Close Agence France-Presse/Getty Images A welder in Port Fourchon, La., worked Monday on part of a dome that might be used to contain oil spilling from a well in the Gulf. BP says the Deepwater Horizon did have a "dead man" switch, which should have automatically closed the valve on the seabed in the event of a loss of power or communication from the rig. BP said it can't explain why it didn't shut off the well. Transocean drillers aboard the rig at the time of the explosion, who should have been in a position to hit the main cutoff switch, are among the dead. It isn't known if they were able to reach the button, which would have been located in the area where the fire is likely to have started. Another possibility is that one of them did push the button, but it didn't work. Tony Hayward, BP's CEO, said finding out why the blowout preventer didn't shut down the well is the key question in the investigation. "This is the failsafe mechanism that clearly has failed," Mr. Hayward said in an interview. Lars Herbst, regional director of the Minerals Management Service in the Gulf of Mexico, said investigators are focusing on why the blowout preventer failed. Crude oil released into the Gulf of Mexico after an oil rig explosion last week is now threatening the Louisiana shore. WSJ reporter Angel Gonzalez takes a look at the damage from the air, where oil sheen seems to extend to the horizon. Industry consultants and petroleum engineers said that an acoustic remote-control may have been able to stop the well, but too much is still unknown about the accident to say that with certainty. Rigs in Norway and Brazil are equipped with the remote-control devices, which can trigger the blowout preventers from a lifeboat in the event the electric cables connecting the valves to the drilling rig are damaged. While U.S. regulators have called the acoustic switches unreliable and prone, in the past, to cause unnecessary shut-downs, Inger Anda, a spokeswoman for Norway's Petroleum Safety Authority, said the switches have a good track record in the North Sea. "It's been seen as the most successful and effective option," she said. The manufacturers of the equipment, including Kongsberg Maritime AS, Sonardyne Ltd. and Nautronix PLC, say their equipment has improved significantly over the past decade. The Brazilian government began urging the use of the remote-control equipment in 2007, after an extensive overhaul of its safety rules following a fire aboard an oil platform killed 11 people, said Raphael Moura, head of safety division at Brazil's National Petroleum Agency. "Our concern is both safety and the environment," he said. Related Article Oil Spill Estimates Raised Fivefold Industry critics cite the lack of the remote control as a sign U.S. drilling policy has been too lax. "What we see, going back two decades, is an oil industry that has had way too much sway with federal regulations," said Dan McLaughlin, a spokesman for Democratic Florida Sen. Bill Nelson. "We are seeing our worst nightmare coming true." U.S. regulators have considered mandating the use of remote-control acoustic switches or other back-up equipment at least since 2000. After a drilling ship accidentally released oil, the Minerals Management Service issued a safety notice that said a back-up system is "an essential component of a deepwater drilling system." The industry argued against the acoustic systems. A 2001 report from the International Association of Drilling Contractors said "significant doubts remain in regard to the ability of this type of system to provide a reliable emergency back-up control system during an actual well flowing incident." By 2003, U.S. regulators decided remote-controlled safeguards needed more study. A report commissioned by the Minerals Management Service said "acoustic systems are not recommended because they tend to be very costly." A spokesman for the agency, Nicholas Pardi, said the decision not to require the device came, in part, after the agency took a survey that found most rigs already had back-up systems of some kind. Those systems include the unmanned submarines BP has been using to try to close the seabed valve. —Jeff Fick contributed to this article. Write to Russell Gold at [email protected], Ben Casselman at [email protected] and Guy Chazan at [email protected] Corrections & Amplifications: The oil rig that exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico was owned by Transocean Ltd. and leased by BP PLC. A previous version of this article incorrectly said that BP owned the rig.

As the oil spill off Louisiana threatens to become one of the biggest in US history, Pro Publica would like to remind everyone that the federal agency charged with preventing such accidents "has had a spotty record over the past few years." That would be the Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service, which made news in 2008 for a sex-and-drugs scandal of epic proportions. Now, thanks to reporting in the Wall Street Journal and Huffington Post, it's emerging that the MMS did not require rig owner BP to file plans on how it would react to an uncontrollable spill or to have a safety device known as an acoustic control that could have helped. MMS allowed BP to plan for a smaller-scale spill, and now the federal government is scrambling to contain the slick before it reaches land.

After the last TCMP survey for tax year 1988, IRS concluded that TCMP was too costly, too burdensome, and too time consuming. To mitigate these concerns, the former Commissioner of Internal Revenue asked IRS staff to redesign TCMP, reducing the sample size by over half and limiting the scope of the audits. In April 1993, we reported on the importance of TCMP, indicating that the proposed changes to the size and scope of TCMP appeared unjustified and would undercut its benefits. We reported that TCMP was not too costly because past TCMP results had been used to more efficiently allocate billions of dollars in enforcement resources and to recommend tax law changes that generated billions of dollars of revenue a year. We also noted that the burden was small compared to the benefits derived from the TCMP audits. TCMP audits actually reduce overall burden on taxpayers to the extent that they reduce the number of compliant taxpayers that are selected for other IRS audits. Finally, we identified ways in which IRS could make TCMP results more timely. Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation also opposed IRS’ proposed changes to TCMP, arguing that the changes were unlikely to provide data with the same quality and usefulness as those data found in prior TCMP surveys. Moreover, as IRS began organizing its compliance efforts around more objective data, IRS recognized the value of TCMP as an important source for such data. Out of this recognition came the 1994 TCMP for which audits are slated to begin in October 1995. Our objectives were to (1) determine the status of IRS’ 1994 TCMP planning effort and (2) identify the potential effects of this plan on measuring taxpayer compliance. To determine the status of the 1994 TCMP, we discussed IRS’ TCMP action plan with responsible officials in the Research Division and the Examination Division. We obtained information on the status of the plan and discussed with IRS officials their progress in meeting the milestones established by the plan. To identify the possible effects of the plan on measuring taxpayer compliance, we talked to IRS officials responsible for planning the survey and reviewed documents describing the scope of the 1994 TCMP. We discussed the sampling methodology with officials from IRS’ Statistics of Income who participated in the sample design phase. We also discussed IRS’ plans for conducting the audits with officials from IRS’ Examination Division. We also reviewed IRS’ draft documents on information to be gathered during the TCMP audits. We questioned IRS officials in various divisions and other users of TCMP data, including staff from the Joint Committee on Taxation, on whether this TCMP would meet their data needs. Our observations in this report are based on the work we have done over the years on IRS’ compliance programs as well as specific work on TCMP over recent years. We issued a report in May 1994 on all such work. We did our work between August and November 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. On November 16, 1994, we obtained oral comments from officials responsible for planning and implementing TCMP in IRS’ Examination and Research Divisions, including the Director of Examination Quality and Support and a representative for the Director of Research. We have reflected these comments in the appropriate sections of this report. Current plans indicate the 1994 TCMP will differ significantly from previous TCMP surveys, ranging from the sample design to the audit methods. As discussed below, these changes should provide for more comprehensive and useful data on compliance issues. But the success of each change depends on critical steps. For the 1994 TCMP sample, IRS plans to audit over 150,000 tax returns filed by individuals, small corporations, S corporations, and partnerships—about 40,000 more returns than the aggregate for these entity types in prior surveys. On the basis of our evaluation of IRS’ sampling plan, the sample is large enough to provide sufficiently precise estimates to measure compliance both nationally and for some of IRS’ 29 District Office Research and Analysis (DORA) sites, which are located throughout the country. The 1994 TCMP sample stratifies tax returns by market segments—not by type of return, income amount, or assets as in prior TCMP samples. A market segment represents a group of taxpayers with similar characteristics, such as those in manufacturing. This time, IRS plans to stratify taxpayers into 24 business (including 1 international business) and 3 nonbusiness (individuals) market segments. IRS believes that stratifying in this manner will allow it to more effectively use TCMP data for identifying noncompliance trends and selecting cases for audit. To ensure comparability with previous TCMP surveys, the sample can also be stratified into the traditional groupings (i.e., type of return). Appendix I shows the number of planned sample cases for each market segment by return type. For TCMP users, the 1994 sample is intended to provide reliable comparative information across both return types and market segments, at the national level. For example, users should be able to estimate the national compliance of a particular market segment, such as health and medical services, and compare the compliance of these businesses organized as corporations, partnerships, and sole proprietors. Due to limitations in the sample size, however, such estimates at some DORA sites will be limited to either market segment or return type. In the example above, a DORA site may only be able to measure either the compliance for all health and medical services or the compliance of all corporations covered by the TCMP, regardless of market segment. Even so, the sample size and methodology are likely to make the 1994 TCMP the most comprehensive survey ever conducted and, therefore, potentially the most useful for measuring compliance. IRS plans to provide more information to its auditors on each sample case in this TCMP. For each case, auditors are to receive 3 years of tax returns (1994 and the 2 prior years), information return transcripts, and other taxpayer-specific tax data. Additionally, DORA sites are supposed to develop specific industry profiles for each market segment in their geographical area. These profiles may include information such as average gross receipts and net profits by industry. DORA sites may also provide other information for the TCMP cases, such as state and local tax data. IRS believes this additional information will help auditors identify more sources of noncompliance and improve the value of TCMP audit results. The information, however, will only be useful to the extent that auditors are properly trained and encouraged to use it. Because IRS established the DORA sites in 1994, information provided by these sites may be limited until they have enough staff trained in research and analysis techniques. IRS is training its auditors to audit the taxpayer as well as the tax return. Described as the economic reality approach, this audit technique should help auditors look for inconsistencies between the taxpayer’s lifestyle and the amount of disposable income shown on the return. IRS believes that this approach will allow auditors to identify noncompliance that might otherwise have gone undetected. This audit technique may require more time than simply auditing the tax return, as has been done in the past. However, IRS officials believe that the benefits from identifying more noncompliance will more than offset the cost associated with increased audit time. Finishing the training before the audits start and ensuring that auditors use the technique will improve the likelihood of achieving these benefits. Unlike prior surveys, IRS plans to require auditors to identify the cause for most instances of noncompliance found on the return and determine the associated tax issue. IRS officials believe that knowing the specific tax issue involved and understanding the reasons for noncompliance will help IRS develop programs to more effectively improve compliance. Identifying the cause of noncompliance will not be easy. IRS has identified and plans to use 27 causal codes in TCMP, ranging from “engaging in illegal activities” to “relying on a friend’s advice.” Some of the causal codes are very subjective, depending on the auditors’ judgment, while others rely primarily on the testimony of the taxpayer. The validity and usefulness of these causal codes depend, in part, on auditors applying the codes uniformly. Uniform application of the codes will only be as good as the criteria, instructions, and training provided to auditors as well as the quality of supervisory reviews. In past TCMP surveys, auditors manually recorded audit adjustments on a checksheet, which was later transcribed into the TCMP database by regional or district office clerical staff. IRS officials have long had a concern about errors occurring during this data entry process that were not detected until data analysis began, which was long after the audits had been completed. For the first time, IRS plans to require that all TCMP audit information be entered onto computers by the auditor. To ensure that accurate data are entered, the computer software is to be programmed to do consistency checks on the data. If data fail to pass the consistency checks, the auditor should be able to correct the errors while audit workpapers are still available for reference. Using such computerized input should reduce the potential for transcription errors and improve the quality of the data transmitted to the TCMP database maintained at IRS’ Detroit Computing Center. While the concept of such computerization is commendable, the computer system has not yet been developed and tested. Until this is done, it will not be possible for auditors to be trained in its use. Table 1 summarizes the potential improvements being planned for TCMP, as well as the critical steps that remain if IRS is to achieve its goals. IRS officials recognize that these activities are necessary to completely implement the improvements. The 1994 TCMP offers IRS an opportunity to obtain information on the compliance characteristics of a broad segment of the taxpaying population. Below, we discuss our concerns that IRS may not be taking full advantage of this opportunity and may not be able to meet its goal of starting audits in October 1995. We also discuss our concerns about the data that IRS does not plan to collect. A key element of any undertaking of this magnitude is effective planning. With less than a year remaining until the planned start of audits, our review showed that a significant amount of work remains to be done. To provide perspective, table 2 outlines the status of IRS’ key TCMP planning efforts. IRS has many preparatory tasks to complete before TCMP audits can begin in October 1995. All of these tasks must be completed with five staff members, about half the nine staff members employed during the planning stage in the last TCMP survey, even though this 1994 TCMP survey is more complex with about three times as many returns. It is important that IRS meet its October 1995 schedule to begin auditing tax year 1994 returns. Even with this start date, the TCMP results cannot be used to fully measure compliance levels or develop audit selection formulas until the end of 1998. By this time, the data will already be 4 years old. The older the 1994 data get, the less reliable those data will be as an indicator of compliance problems. It is too early in the planning stage to tell whether IRS’ specific milestones will be met. IRS has missed its September 1994 milestone for defining data needs and data collection requirements. IRS officials indicated that IRS could make up the time lost from missing this milestone, even with the increased workload and reduced staffing. The officials said that work had been continuing and that audits would begin by October 1995. Continued close monitoring by IRS management of these milestones can help to determine whether additional actions may be required to meet the milestones. A key element of any research project is a plan that defines the goals and describes the questions the researcher hopes to answer. The research plan defines the data to be gathered and data analysis to be done. We are concerned that IRS has no such research plan for the 1994 TCMP survey even though it will be much more complex and comprehensive than prior surveys. The very elements of this TCMP that make it unique (e.g., 4 entity types stratified by 27 market segments) require that certain research questions be addressed before IRS finalizes the TCMP data requirements. For example, IRS has not determined how market segment compliance levels will be measured or how compliance levels for income and deduction items will be measured across return types. Such determinations may have an impact on the types of data IRS collects. A research plan would be useful for explaining how compliance will be measured by DORA sites. IRS has emphasized that DORA sites will be a primary customer for the 1994 TCMP data. According to IRS officials, however, the 1994 TCMP data may have limited use at some DORA sites because the sample size is often too small to be useful to statistically estimate compliance by both market segment and return type. Consequently, analysis of compliance data at the DORA sites will have to be done on entire market segments, without regard to entity type. IRS officials said that these sampling concerns can be addressed by consolidating the samples either by market segments, DORA sites, or return types. IRS has not developed a compliance measure across the four entity types. IRS’ primary measure of compliance is the tax liability that was voluntarily reported divided by the reported tax liability plus the additional tax recommended in the audit. This measure, called the Voluntary Compliance Level, can only be used as a compliance measure for individuals and corporations because they are taxable entities. Partnerships and S corporations are not taxed directly. The income (or loss) of these entities flow to the partners or shareholders who calculate and pay the tax. A standard measure of compliance across entity types would aid in analyzing TCMP data. Also, IRS has no measure to account for differences in specific types of income and deductions across return types. For example, the types of income reported on the corporate tax return include income from gross receipts, rents, interest, royalties, and capital gains. In contrast, income reported on returns for sole proprietors consists primarily of gross receipts. Similar differences exist for business deductions, such as commissions and car and truck expenses, that sole proprietors are to itemize on their tax returns but that corporations are to aggregate under a tax return line for “other” expenses. A detailed research plan could help IRS devise a measure to account for such differences. After reviewing a draft of this report, IRS officials acknowledged that they had no research plan, but said that they believe sufficient data will be collected to develop compliance measures. While agreeing that such measures are needed, IRS officials indicated that they needed to see the data before developing these measures. Although IRS will be collecting a lot of data, we cannot judge such sufficiency without seeing the research plan and the related measures. Developing these measures as soon as possible before the audits start could help ensure sufficient data collection and analysis to meet the goals for TCMP. The compliance of partnerships and S corporations is becoming an important issue as these entity types become a larger proportion of the business population. However, IRS’ draft data collection instrument indicated that significant partnership and S corporation data will not be collected. These two entities each report income and deductions as well as the allocations of net profits or losses on two tax documents. Partnerships report on Form 1065, “U.S. Partnership Return of Income,” and Schedule K, “Partners’ Shares of Income, Credits, Deductions, etc.,” while S corporations use two similar forms, Form 1120S (i.e., their income tax return) and Schedule K. IRS planned to collect data from Forms 1065 and 1120S, but not the Schedules K because it could not determine how to fit such data into the data collection instrument. This would have left out certain types of income such as rental income and portfolio income (e.g., interest, dividends, and royalties) that are generally reported only on Schedule K. For tax year 1992, Statistics of Income data indicate that about one-half of partnership net income appeared only on the Schedule K. Collecting Schedule K data would allow IRS to get a more complete picture of tax compliance by partnerships and S corporations, which represent about 21 percent of the TCMP sample population for business taxpayers. IRS also does not plan to collect information on partners and shareholders because of the potential volume of such information. While IRS officials told us that the Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) of corporate officials shown on the Form 1120S is to be transcribed into the TCMP database, IRS does not plan to transcribe the TINs of individual partners and shareholders. As a result, IRS will not be able to accurately track the tax consequences of adjustments to partnership and S corporation returns to the individual taxpayers. IRS has recently stated an objective of increasing voluntary compliance to 90 percent by the year 2001. Tracking the tax impacts of all adjustments to partnership and S corporation returns would help IRS measure its progress towards achieving this objective. We obtained comments on a draft of this report from IRS Research Division officials who said that they now plan to obtain Schedule K data for partnerships and S corporations, but not data on individual partners and shareholders. As an alternative to collecting data on these individuals to estimate the tax impacts of partnership and S corporation audit changes, IRS could calculate a rough estimate by multiplying the marginal tax rate for individuals by the amount of the audit adjustments. Workers can be classified as either “employees” or “independent contractors” (self-employed individuals who provide services). Under common law, the degree of control, or right to control, that a business has over a worker governs the classification. If a worker must follow instructions on when, where, and how to do the work, he or she is more likely to be an employee. It is important for IRS to know whether a worker is correctly classified because employees who have their taxes withheld are generally more compliant than independent contractors. This classification issue has plagued IRS for decades. Because of the tax and nontax impacts, many concerns have also been expressed by the business community over worker misclassification and IRS’ enforcement approach to it. Having information that is more recent and statistically based may help to resolve some of the concerns expressed by both IRS and the business community. For the 1994 TCMP survey, IRS officials told us that auditors will evaluate businesses with workers to determine whether the workers were properly classified as employees or independent contractors. Auditors will be instructed to indicate on the TCMP data collection instrument whether businesses with questionable classification practices were referred to IRS’ Employment Tax Branch for a more detailed audit of the classification issue. This approach may allow IRS to estimate the number of businesses represented by the TCMP population that potentially misclassified workers. However, it will not allow IRS to fully estimate the number of workers who are misclassified, the potential income tax loss associated with misclassified workers, or the compliance characteristics of misclassified workers. To make these estimates, IRS would have to record data on the misclassified workers identified in the classification audits. This would allow IRS to estimate the number of workers misclassified by the businesses represented by the TCMP sample. Another approach to estimating the tax compliance of misclassified workers would be to have TCMP auditors identify self-employed individuals who may have been misclassified. IRS employment tax specialists could develop criteria to help TCMP auditors identify these workers. This approach would allow IRS to estimate the magnitude of the problem as well as the compliance characteristics of the potentially misclassified workers. Determining whether these workers were actually misclassified would require separate IRS audits. IRS has devoted considerable enforcement resources to the misclassified worker problem on the premise that it is a sizable one. Information on the magnitude and compliance characteristics of misclassified workers can be used to improve IRS’ compliance programs. It also can help answer policy questions that have been long debated on the use of employees versus independent contractors. After reviewing a draft of this report, IRS officials agreed with our points and indicated that they will provide a space for the auditor to indicate whether a return was referred to the employment tax group for a classification audit. The officials said they still needed to finalize the criteria for referral and the magnitude of employment tax audits for which the results will be collected in a separate TCMP database. We found that IRS was not planning to collect causal data describing the reasons for noncompliance on some tax return items. Nor did IRS plan to collect data on compliance in filing certain information returns. IRS’ draft data collection instrument indicates that causal data will not be collected on several important items, such as on erroneously claimed earned income tax credits. The preliminary results of an IRS study of returns filed in a 2-week period in January 1994 showed that an estimated $358 million of $1.5 billion (24 percent) in earned income tax credits claimed in this period were erroneously claimed. Considering the size of this compliance problem and the limited information available, it is important to determine its cause so that corrective action can be taken. IRS planned to collect data on payor compliance in filing information returns on income such as interest and rent. However, IRS did not plan to collect similar data on taxpayers’ compliance with filing Forms W-2, Wage Statement. IRS uses the Forms W-2 to detect taxpayers who underreport wage income or fail to file tax returns. Knowing the Form W-2 compliance level is important given the size of the potential noncompliance. In its 1987 small corporation (assets of $10 million or less) TCMP, the data showed that these corporate employers failed to file Forms W-2 on $4.5 billion in wages, about 1 percent of the total wages that should have been reported. Similarly, IRS was not planning to collect data on whether the TCMP taxpayer filed other types of required returns such as employment tax returns. Further, while IRS plans to collect information on adjustments to prior and subsequent years for individual returns, no similar information will be collected for corporate or partnership returns. This information would be important for estimating the total amount of noncompliance found as a result of the TCMP audit. After reviewing a draft of this report, IRS Research Division officials said that they plan to collect causal data on the earned income tax credit. The officials also said that they will collect data on payor compliance on which we raised concerns. It is important to develop a data collection mechanism as soon as possible because other steps in the planning process, such as auditor training, depend on it. IRS is concurrently developing two data collection mechanisms for TCMP. One system, the Totally Integrated Examination System (TIES), has been under development for use in non-TCMP audits. TIES is intended to increase auditors’ productivity by automatically calculating the new tax liability that would be based on audit adjustments the auditor enters into the system. TIES is also intended to automatically generate the Revenue Agent Report, which would explain the audit adjustments to the taxpayer. Because TIES is still in the development stage, IRS was uncertain whether TIES would be able to meet the TCMP data requirements. Consequently, IRS is developing a backup system designed specifically for collecting TCMP data. Regardless of which system is used, IRS will need to test the system, develop training materials, and train auditors on how to use it. Our concern is that IRS has little time to complete these tasks and address the inevitable problems that arise in systems development. The sooner IRS makes a decision on the data collection system it will use for the TCMP audits, the sooner it can test the system and train auditors. IRS officials acknowledged the difficulty of developing two systems for the same purpose. They emphasized, however, that the second system was an insurance plan to be used in case the primary system does not work. IRS plans to enter codes into its TCMP database on the causes of noncompliance and the related tax issue. However, these data may not be sufficient for developing compliance strategies. The TCMP workpapers to be created by auditors potentially provide more detailed information on the reasons for noncompliance. In recent years, we have used such workpapers to help us more clearly understand the nature and causes of noncompliance. For example, we used workpapers from the 1988 individual TCMP to determine the potential for identifying taxpayers, through computer matching, who inappropriately claimed dependent exemptions. We would have been unable to make such a determination using the TCMP database because it lacked information on why the dependent exemption had been disallowed (e.g., insufficient financial support or lack of documentation). IRS’ recent strategic plans have identified the need for detailed information on noncompliance. For example, IRS envisions using DORA sites to develop strategies to address reporting accuracy by cash businesses. Without detailed information on the reasons for this noncompliance and the audit techniques used to identify the noncompliance, DORA sites will find it difficult to develop and test compliance strategies. To obtain such detailed information from the workpapers, however, requires that each audited return be ordered from IRS storage facilities and the workpapers reviewed manually. This is time-consuming and, in some cases, the returns and workpapers are not available. These problems limit the usefulness of the workpapers. A more effective strategy could be to make the workpapers available through electronic media. That way, the workpapers would be readily accessible for compliance research. After reviewing a draft of our report, IRS officials agreed that access to TCMP workpapers would provide valuable information, but they were concerned about costs. At a minimum, IRS agreed to explore the feasibility of retaining the computer disks on which auditors prepare their workpapers. Table 3 summarizes our concerns with the status of the TCMP planning, data needs, and collection mechanisms and IRS’ responses. In its 1994 TCMP plans, IRS has gone a long way in improving its collection of compliance data. Better data provide the foundation for better compliance efforts that may also lessen the burden for compliant taxpayers. The TCMP sample, about one-third larger than the total for all entity types from past TCMP efforts, allows for more sophisticated and powerful analyses. New audit techniques and more information should help auditors do higher quality audits. However, the many changes and added complexity (e.g., causal codes, four types of taxpayers) increase the importance of adequate training and supervisory review for the auditors. This TCMP offers great promise; but, it is important that IRS obtain the results as soon as possible. We are concerned that IRS may not complete the significant amount of work that remains before the planned October 1995 starting date for audits. For example, the TCMP data collection system has to be designed and tested, training courses have to be developed and provided to auditors, and tax returns have to be selected and prepared for audits. These steps take time. However, IRS has already missed its September 1994 milestone for defining TCMP data requirements. Subsequent milestones, such as computer software development and testing, cannot be met without these data requirements. IRS officials said that missing this milestone would not delay the October 1995 milestone for starting audits. Given that IRS plans to extensively use data from this TCMP for compliance research, we were also concerned about data that IRS was not planning to collect. We believe that obtaining audit adjustment data on all partnerships and S corporations income and deductions would enhance IRS’ compliance planning and research. Similarly, obtaining better information on misclassified workers would be very useful for identifying their compliance. Finally, obtaining additional data on the causes of noncompliance, and the compliance with wage reporting requirements would allow IRS to make better use of TCMP information in designing compliance programs. IRS agreed that these data were important for compliance planning and research, and IRS now plans to collect these data. Also, IRS officials said that they would consider ways of making audit workpapers more readily available to analysts to help them clarify the tax issues identified in the audits. As noted in our April 1993 report on TCMP, we continue to believe that TCMP is a good investment. TCMP is IRS’ principal tool for objectively measuring compliance with tax laws. Accordingly, it is important that IRS managers monitor the TCMP planning and development effort closely to ensure that TCMP remains on target. Copies of this report are being sent to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. Please contact me on (202) 512-5407 if you have any questions about the report. Louis Roberts, Evaluator-in-Charge 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) Taxpayer Compliance Measurement Program (TCMP), focusing on: (1) program plans for tax year 1994; and (2) the plans' potential effects on measuring taxpayer compliance. GAO found that: (1) the 1994 TCMP survey will differ significantly from previous surveys and include over 150,000 tax returns from individuals, small corporations, partnerships, and S corporations; (2) IRS plans to analyze survey results by types of businesses and individuals and measure compliance on both a national and smaller geographical area basis; (3) IRS plans to use computers to record audit adjustments, tax issues, and the reasons for the adjustments, provide auditors with tax return data for 1992 through 1994 and other tax information on each taxpayer, use an economic reality audit technique to compare the taxpayer's lifestyle to the information reported on the tax return, and identify the causes of noncompliance and the associated tax; (4) IRS has not met its timetable for TCMP planning decisions which jeopardizes its planned October 1995 start date for the survey; (5) IRS is addressing its lack of a research plan and its lack of data on partnerships and S corporations; and (6) IRS plans to collect information on employees who incorrectly file as self-employed and other known compliance problems, and develop a mechanism to retrieve TCMP audit workpapers for researchers.

Cleveland's police chief says he thinks three women who went missing separately a decade ago were tied up in the house where they were found and had been there since they disappeared. FILE - In this Friday, March 3, 2004 file photos shows Felix DeJesus, holding a banner showing his daughter's photograph, standing by a memorial in his living room in Cleveland. Cleveland police say two... (Associated Press) Police say three brothers have been arrested and one is from the home. They say the women were found Monday and one said she'd been kidnapped. Police have released no names and given no details about the men or the charges they might face. The county prosecutor joined dozens of police officers and sheriff's deputies at the scene as they began searching the house late Monday. Authorities say the women have been taken to a hospital to reunite with relatives and seem to be in good health. Michelle Knight had been missing since 2002, Amanda Berry since 2003 and Gina DeJesus since 2004. ||||| Three longtime missing women, Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight, have been found alive, apparently kidnapped and held for years as prisoners inside a house on Cleveland's near West Side. Berry called police Monday afternoon and frantically told a dispatcher that she was alive and free after being kidnapped 10 years ago and held captive in a house on Seymour Avenue. "We've confirmed it's them," a Cleveland detective said. "They are alive and safe." Police have scheduled a news conference for 9 a.m. today. Berry, now 27, DeJesus, 23, and Knight, 32, were taken to MetroHealth Medical Center. The FBI and police will interview the women, the detective said. DeJesus, missing for nine years, and Knight, missing for 11 years, were with her. Police arrested three brothers, ages 50, 52 and 54. Police did not release names. But neighbors said one of them is the owner of the house, Ariel Castro, 52, a Cleveland school bus driver until last November who had lived in the two-story house since 1992. Records show he was arrested for domestic violence in 1993, but a grand jury declined to indict him. Police were searching the house and yard Monday night and into this morning. Berry was the first to get out of the house, escaping through a broken door. A child came out behind her. Police then came and rescued the other two women, who were taken to the hospital. It wasn't immediately known who the child was. Dr. Gerald Maloney, emergency room doctor at MetroHealth, said in a news conference Monday night that the three women were in fair condition. "They are able to speak, they are safe, and hospital staff are assessing their needs and evaluating if they will spend the night," he said. "This is good. This is not the ending we usually see from these stories." Knight, who was 21 at the time of her disappearance, was last seen at a cousin's house near West 106th Street and Lorain Avenue on Aug. 23, 2002. Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson released a statement Monday expressing gratitude that the three women were found alive. "We have many unanswered questions regarding this case, and the investigation will be ongoing," Jackson wrote. Outside of MetroHealth, a large crowd awaited word on the women's condition. Berry's cousin, Tasheena Mitchell, 26, who was 16 years old when Berry disappeared, said her brother had called to tell her the news that Berry is alive. But she said she received it skeptically, having had her hopes dashed by false reports in the past. "She was my best friend," Mitchell said. A friend interrupted her, "She's alive. She is your best friend." "You're right," Mitchell continued. "She is my best friend. I'm so nervous. I'm so excited. They won't let me inside. But I will stay here all night if I have to." Drivers passing the hospital and the neighborhood honked their car horns in support, while police protected the rescued women's relatives from a crush of TV news cameras and reporters. Many in the crowd hugged and cried. "They don't find people who go missing, you know," said Kayla Rogers, 23, who waited at the hospital for news of her friend. She attended Almira Elementary and Wilbur Wright Middle School with DeJesus. "I'm at a loss for words." Rogers said she only attended one vigil over the years because it was too painful. As the crowd grew outside of Castro's house, details about the mysterious resident circulated. Jannette Gomez, 50, who often visits family and friends on the street, said Castro would park his motorcycle and red pickup truck behind the house, lock the gate and enter the house through a back door. Occasionally, he would turn on a dim porch light, but the house was always dark, Gomez said. Shades blocked the windows, and at least one window was boarded up. Gomez said he never had much to say, she said. He would say 'Hi' back, but there was never much conversation. Castro's uncle, Julio Castro, who owns a store called Caribe at the corner of West 25th Street and Seymour, said he had mixed emotions about the discovery. "For me, it's bad on one side and good on the other side." Julio Castro said his nephew used to play bass in various bands that performed at a local club once owned by DeJesus' uncle. He said he believes his nephew knew the family from the club and the neighborhood. Charlie Czorba, a Caribe customer who lives on Seymour, said he was stunned by how long the women had lived at the house undetected. "This is our own backyard," he said. "These girls were locked up in our own backyard." Another neighbor, Victor Pratts, who has lived on the street for about 25 years, said Ariel Castro would occasionally come out and ride a four-wheeler with him. But Pratts said he never saw any of the three women enter or exit the house. Aurora Marti, 75, who lives across the street from Castro, said she was sitting on her neighbor's front porch talking Monday evening when an arm reached out of the front door at Castro's house. "She was waving her arm and saying, 'Help me! Help me!' " Marti recalled through her daughter, who translated from her mother's Spanish. The captive woman identified herself as Amanda Berry and said she was kidnapped 10 years ago. Amanda Berry's 911 call Neighbor Charles Ramsey said he also heard a girl screaming, "Help, help me out." He said the girl looked familiar. He said he called 9-1-1. Ramsey said Castro took off running while Ramsey kicked and broke the bottom of a door, allowing Berry to crawl out. Police arrested Castro at a nearby McDonald's restaurant and brought the other two women out of the house, witnesses said. Ramsey said he knew Castro, had even eaten ribs with him -- and had no idea the women or the child was in the house. "We never thought that man would do anything to anybody," Pratts said. "He was a bus driver." Mike Iwais, a longtime resident in the neighborhood, lives in a house just a parking lot away -- about 200 feet -- from Castro's house. "I used to see him walking around all the time," he said. "But I never saw nothing crazy. This is unbelievable. It's a miracle they found him, and it's a miracle those girls are alive. It's a blessing from God." Charles Ramsey's 911 call (contains strong language) Michelle Knight's grandmother, Deborah Knight, said she had not yet heard from police but was waiting for some kind of verification that one of the women is really her granddaughter. Although Michelle Knight was reported missing more than a decade ago, family members concluded that she probably left on her own because she was angry that her son was removed from her custody, the grandmother said. She said her daughter believed she had last seen Michelle Knight several years ago in a van with an older man at a shopping plaza on West 117th Street. A June 2004 story that appeared in the Plain Press, a West Side neighborhood newspaper, was written by someone named Ariel Castro and described the community's anxiety since the disappearance of DeJesus and Berry. A Plain Press spokesman said the Ariel Castro who wrote for the publication was a journalism student whose relationship to the man in custody is not known. The author interviewed DeJesus' mother, Nancy Ruiz, and a group of parents waiting for their children to be released from Wilbur Wright Middle School. They spoke of the need for greater security and the fear that had settled upon the neighborhood. "For seven weeks, Gina's family has been organizing searches, holding prayer vigils, posting fliers and calling press conferences," Castro wrote. "Despite the many tips and rumors that have been circulating in the neighborhood, there has been no sign of her. One thing is for certain, however. Almost everyone feels a connection with the family, and Gina's disappearance has the whole area talking." Rachel Dissell and Peter Krouse contributed to this story ||||| The woman's voice was frantic and breathless, and she was choking back tears. "Help me. I'm Amanda Berry," she told a 911 dispatcher. "I've been kidnapped and I've been missing for 10 years and I'm, I'm here, I'm free now." This image provided by the FBI shows an undated photo of Amanda Berry. The voice of the long-missing woman was frantic and breathless, choking back tears. "Help me. I'm Amanda Berry," she told a 911... (Associated Press) Neighbor Charles Ramsey speaks to media near the home on the 2200 block of Seymour Avenue, where three missing women were rescued in Cleveland, on Monday, May 6, 2013. Cheering crowds gathered on the... (Associated Press) Members of the FBI evidence team remove items from a house on in Cleveland Monday, May 6, 2013. Three women who went missing separately about a decade ago, when they were in their teens or early 20s,... (Associated Press) Investigators enter a house on the west side of Cleveland Monday, May 6, 2013 where police say three women were found. The women who went missing separately about a decade ago, when they were in their... (Associated Press) Police and FBI congregate outside a house on Cleveland's west side Monday, May 6, 2013 where police say three women were found. The women who went missing separately about a decade ago, when they were... (Associated Press) These undated handout photos provided by the FBI show Amanda Berry, left, and Georgina "Gina" Dejesus. Cleveland Police Chief Michael McGrath said he thinks Berry, DeJesus and Michelle Knight were tied... (Associated Press) Tasheena Mitchell, cousin of Amanda Berry celebrates outside of MetroHealth Medical Center after Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michele Knight were found in a house on Seymour Avenue in Cleveland, Monday, May... (Associated Press) FILE - In this Friday, March 3, 2004 file photos shows Felix DeJesus, holding a banner showing his daughter's photograph, standing by a memorial in his living room in Cleveland. Cleveland police say two... (Associated Press) FILE - In this March 3, 2006 file photo, a memorial for Gina DeJesus, who has been missing since April 2, 2004, rests alongside her house in Cleveland. Cleveland police say DeJesus, one of two women who... (Associated Press) This image provided by the FBI shows an undated photo of Georgina "Gina" Dejesus. Police Chief Michael McGrath said he thinks Amanda Berry, DeJesus and Michelle Knight were tied up at the house and held... (Associated Press) Cleveland Police stand outside a home where they say missing women, Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michele Knight were found in the 2200 block of Seymour Avenue in Cleveland on Monday, May 6, 2013. The... (Associated Press) Those words led police to a house near downtown Cleveland where Berry and two other women who vanished a decade ago were found Monday, elating family members and friends who had longed to see them again. Authorities later arrested three brothers. They released no names and gave no information about them or what charges they might face. City officials have scheduled a news conference for Tuesday morning. Police Chief Michael McGrath said he thinks Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight were tied up at the house and held there since they were in their teens or early 20s. A 6-year-old also was found in the home, but police didn't disclose the child's identity or relationship to anyone in the home. The women appeared to be in good health and were taken to a hospital to be evaluated and be reunited with relatives. The women's escape and rescue began with a frenzied cry for help. A neighbor, Charles Ramsey, told WEWS-TV he heard screaming Monday and saw Berry, whom he didn't recognize, at a door that would open only enough to fit a hand through. He said she was trying desperately to get outside and pleaded for help to reach police. "I heard screaming," he said. "I'm eating my McDonald's. I come outside. I see this girl going nuts trying to get out of a house." Neighbor Anna Tejeda was sitting on her porch with friends when they heard someone across the street kicking a door and yelling. Tejeda, 50, said one of her friends went over and told Berry how to kick the screen out of the bottom of the door, which allowed her to get out. Speaking Spanish, which was translated by one of her friends, Tejeda said Berry was nervous and crying. She was dressed in pajamas and old sandals. At first Tejeda said she didn't want to believe who the young woman was. "You're not Amanda Berry," she insisted. "Amanda Berry is dead." But when Berry told her she'd been kidnapped and held captive, Tejeda said she gave her the telephone to call police, who arrived within minutes and then took the other women from the house. On a recorded 911 call Monday, Berry declared, "I'm Amanda Berry. I've been on the news for the last 10 years." She said she had been taken by someone and begged for police officers to come to the home on Cleveland's west side before the man returned. "I've been kidnapped, and I've been missing for 10 years," she told the dispatcher. "And I'm here. I'm free now." Berry disappeared at age 16 on April 21, 2003, when she called her sister to say she was getting a ride home from her job at a Burger King. About a year later, DeJesus vanished at age 14 on her way home from school. Police said Knight disappeared in 2002 and is 32 now. Berry is now 27, according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Authorities didn't provide a current age DeJesus. Police said one of the brothers who was arrested, a 52-year-old, lived at the home, and the others, ages 50 and 54, lived elsewhere. Ramsey, the neighbor, said he'd barbecued with the home's owner and never suspected anything was amiss. "There was nothing exciting about him _ well, until today," he said. Julio Castro, who runs a grocery store half a block from where the women were found, said the homeowner arrested is his nephew, Ariel Castro. Berry also identified Ariel Castro by name in her 911 call. Attempts to reach Ariel Castro in jail were unsuccessful Monday. Messages to the sheriff's office and a jail spokesman went unanswered, and there was no public phone listing for the home, which was being searched by dozens of police officers and sheriff's deputies. The uncle said Ariel Castro had worked as a school bus driver. The Cleveland school district confirmed he was a former employee but wouldn't release details. The women's loved ones said they hadn't given up hope of seeing them again. A childhood friend of DeJesus, Kayla Rogers, said she couldn't wait to hug her. "I've been praying, never forgot about her, ever," Rogers told The Plain Dealer newspaper. Berry's cousin Tasheena Mitchell told the newspaper she couldn't wait to have Berry in her arms. "I'm going to hold her, and I'm going to squeeze her and I probably won't let her go," she said. Berry's mother, Louwana Miller, who had been hospitalized for months with pancreatitis and other ailments, died in March 2006. She had spent the previous three years looking for her daughter, whose disappearance took a toll as her health steadily deteriorated, family and friends said. Councilwoman Dona Brady said she had spent many hours with Miller, who never gave up hope that her daughter was alive. "She literally died of a broken heart," Brady said. Mayor Frank Jackson expressed gratitude that the three women were found alive. He said there are many unanswered questions in the ongoing investigation. At Metro Health Medical Center, Dr. Gerald Maloney wouldn't discuss the women's conditions in detail but said they were being evaluated by appropriate specialists. "This is really good, because this isn't the ending we usually hear in these stories," he said. "So, we're very happy." In January, a prison inmate was sentenced to 4 1/2 years after admitting he provided a false burial tip in the disappearance of Berry. A judge in Cleveland sentenced Robert Wolford on his guilty plea to obstruction of justice, making a false report and making a false alarm. Last summer, Wolford tipped authorities to look for Berry's remains in a Cleveland lot. He was taken to the location, which was dug up with backhoes. Two men arrested for questioning in the disappearance of DeJesus in 2004 were released from the city jail in 2006 after officers didn't find her body during a search of the men's house. In September 2006, police acting on a tip tore up the concrete floor of the garage and used a cadaver dog to search unsuccessfully for DeJesus' body. Investigators confiscated 19 pieces of evidence during their search but declined to comment on the significance of the items then. ___ Associated Press writer Kantele Franko in Columbus contributed to this report.

The three Cleveland women found alive after vanishing a decade ago were found in a home just a few miles away from where they disappeared after one of them apparently managed to escape her captor. Neighbors of suspect Ariel Castro say they heard a woman scream "Help me! Help me!" and found a woman who identified herself as Amanda Berry, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports. "I heard screaming," neighbor Charles Ramsey tells the AP. "I'm eating my McDonald's. I come outside. I see this girl going nuts trying to get out of a house." Neighbors say she crawled out—with a child—after they kicked out the bottom of the home's aluminum door, which apparently opened just enough to fit a hand through. After police arrived, they rescued Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight from the home and arrested Castro, 52, at a nearby McDonald's. Police say a total of three brothers have been arrested in the case and the women appear to have been held captive at the home since they disappeared—Berry in 2003 at the age of 16, DeJesus in 2004 aged 14, and Knight in 2002 aged 21, the AP reports. Neighbors say they never saw the women enter or exit the Castro home and had no idea they were in the house. "We never thought that man would do anything to anybody," says a man who has lived in the neighborhood for 25 years. "He was a bus driver."

On May 23, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the District Court for the Southern District of Florida to impose an injunction on EchoStar Communications Corporation to cease retransmitting all programming originating on stations affiliated with ABC, Inc.; CBS Broadcasting, Inc.; Fox Broadcasting Co.; or National Broadcasting Co. The district court complied in two orders, one granting a motion for entry of a permanent injunction and denying a settlement agreement, the other ordering the implementation of the injunction effective December 1, 2006. At issue before the Eleventh Circuit was whether EchoStar had violated the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), as amended, which grants a limited statutory license to satellite carriers transmitting distant network signals to private homes if the subscribers reside in unserved households, and the scope and consequences of that violation. The court of appeals held that because EchoStar was unable to disprove it had engaged in a "pattern or practice" of SHVA violations on a nationwide scale, the terms of the Satellite Home Viewer Act required that the court impose a nationwide injunction against EchoStar's improper retransmission of distant network programming. This differs from the decision of the district court, which had concluded that so long as EchoStar was currently complying with SHVA, the court had discretion to order EchoStar to re-analyze its subscriber base, supervised by the court to ensure compliance with SHVA, and terminate all subscribers who were ineligible to receive the signals. This report briefly describes the Satellite Home Viewer Act, as amended, through the lens of the Eleventh Circuit's ruling regarding a satellite provider's retransmission of programming originating on distant network affiliate stations to persons who live in "unserved" households. It then describes the facts underpinning the court's decision, followed by the main legal issues the court addressed and a discussion of the district court's implementation of the court of appeals' decision. The report concludes with possible legislative action. The Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1988 (SHVA), as amended, grants satellite carriers like EchoStar a compulsory license to retransmit copyrighted "distant network programming" to "unserved households." The purpose behind granting the compulsory license is to "satisfy the public interest in making available network programming in these (typically rural) areas, while also respecting the public interest in protecting the network-affiliate distribution system." Distant network programming is programming that a satellite television subscriber receives from a network-affiliated broadcast station located outside his or her market area. An example is a person who lives in Fort Lauderdale but receives an ABC, CBS, Fox, or NBC network station from New York City. An unserved household , for the purposes of this discussion, is one in which a subscriber (1) cannot receive an over-the-air television signal at a certain level of signal intensity, (2) has received a waiver from the local affiliated network station, or (3) is grandfathered in. Under SHVA, the satellite carrier bears the burden of proving its subscribers reside in unserved households. If it fails to provide sufficient evidence that a household is unserved, the satellite carrier may be held liable for damages and injunctive relief. For households receiving an over-the-air television signal, SHVA permits two methods of determining whether a household is unable to receive a signal of requisite strength: the use of the "accurate measurements method" and the "accurate predictive model." The accurate measurements method requires actual physical measurements to determine the strength of the television signal at the subscriber's residence, performed in accordance with statutory and regulatory requirements. By contrast, the accurate predictive model, or ILLR, does not require home visits, yet allows the satellite carrier, through a computer model, to presumptively establish that a household cannot receive a sufficient signal and is therefore unserved. Penalties for violating SHVA vary, depending on whether they are classified as "individual violations" or "patterns of violations." An individual violation occurs where there is a willful or repeated retransmission to a subscriber who is not eligible to receive the transmission. By contrast, a pattern of violations occurs when a satellite carrier engages in a willful or repeated pattern or practice of delivering distant network service to subscribers who are not eligible to receive the transmission. A district court has broad discretion to remedy individual violations but has less discretion in its choice of remedy for a pattern or practice of violations. Assuming a court finds a willful or repeated pattern or practice of violations, it must order a permanent injunction barring retransmission by the satellite carrier of any primary transmissions from any network station affiliated with the same network, and may order damages not to exceed $250,000 for each six-month period during which the pattern or practice of violations occurred. If the violations occurred on a "substantially nationwide basis," the court must order a permanent injunction against the satellite carrier encompassing "the primary transmissions of any primary network station affiliated with the same network" —a nationwide ban. If the violations occurred on a "local or regional basis," the court must order a permanent injunction against the satellite carrier that bars the retransmission "in that locality or region." At issue was whether EchoStar willfully or repeatedly violated SHVA by retransmitting distant network signals to ineligible satellite television subscribers from 1996 to 2003, and if so, whether the nature of the violations was best classified as "individual" or "pattern or practice" violations, thereby triggering different penalties. The district court examined the methodology by which EchoStar classified a household as unserved and the percentage of the carrier's subscriber base inappropriately classified as eligible for service. The court concluded that from 1996 to 2002, EchoStar used improper methodology to assess whether a person resided in an unserved household, with the result that 60% or more of subscribers were ineligible for service. Because EchoStar did not satisfy its statutory burden of proving it only retransmitted distant network signals to unserved households, the district court held that EchoStar's conduct constituted willful or repeated copyright infringement, actionable under the part of SHVA that governs "individual violations." The district court did not reach a conclusion as to whether EchoStar engaged in a pattern or practice of violations, which would trigger a permanent injunction, because "no pattern or practice currently exists that would warrant such an extreme sanction." The court of appeals overturned the district court's legal conclusion regarding EchoStar's punishment, holding that the district court was indeed obligated to issue a nationwide permanent injunction against EchoStar's retransmission of network programming as a consequence of "the inescapable conclusion, based on the district court's findings, that EchoStar did engage in a 'pattern or practice' of violations." The district court erroneously concluded that the legal standard for "pattern or practice" liability required EchoStar to be currently engaged in violating SHVA. The court of appeals held that the permanent injunction required under "pattern or practice" must be imposed, so long as a pattern or practice of statutory violations occurred at some point in time. The court then proceeded to evaluate whether EchoStar had engaged at any time in a pattern or practice of violating SHVA. According to the court, the standard for concluding "pattern or practice" liability under SHVA is "whenever a satellite carrier fails to carry its burden of proving eligibility [for distant network service] on a sufficient scale, and to a sufficient degree, that [a court] can presume that the satellite carrier is engaging in 'pattern or practice' of serving ineligible subscribers." Looking at the legislative history of SHVA, the court determined that a threshold of 20% of subscribers being ineligible for service is a relevant marker for pattern or practice analysis. The court of appeals, believing "that there is no other possible conclusion that can be drawn from the district court's findings of fact," determined that EchoStar's prior conduct did constitute a pattern or practice of violations. The court based this conclusion on a three main factors. First, EchoStar's three-and-a-half year history of using inadequate procedures for assessing subscriber eligibility. Second, EchoStar's exceeding the 20% threshold of unlawful subscribers nationwide. Third, EchoStar's pattern of behavior, about which the court stated, "we have found no indication EchoStar was ever interested in complying with the Act." The court also denied all but one of EchoStar's 17 claims of error. In addressing EchoStar's assertions that the court had discretion to determine a remedy for the violations, the court found that "Congress unequivocally stated a purpose to restrict the courts' traditional equitable authority upon a finding of a 'pattern or practice.'" Because the act instructs that a court shall order a permanent injunction and may order statutory damages, the court found there to be "no ambiguous statutory language in the SHVA ... [or] any legislative history that would indicate that the remedial measure chosen by Congress is anything but mandatory." As a result, on August 15, 2006, the court of appeals ordered the district court to issue a nationwide permanent injunction barring the retransmission of distant network programming pursuant to the act's statutory license. Ten days after the court of appeals decision, EchoStar and the Affiliate Associations filed a Notice of Settlement between those parties in the district court. On August 31, Fox Broadcasting Company (Fox) filed a motion for entry of a nationwide permanent injunction in accordance with the court of appeals' decision. The district court issued two orders in response to Fox's motion on October 20, 2006. EchoStar and the Affiliate Associations (the Settling Parties) made three arguments against the court's imposition of the injunction and in favor of granting the proposed consent agreement. First, the Settling Parties argued that Fox lacked standing to obtain relief because the act only applies to networks, not network stations, and Fox abandoned its cross-appeal to the court of appeals, thereby waiving its right to seek an injunction. Second, they argued that the nationwide permanent injunction Fox sought was overly broad, and considering the agreement between the Settling Parties, the court had discretion to enter more narrow relief. Finally, Echostar argued that the entry of a nationwide permanent injunction would cause manifest injustice to the parties and EchoStar's customers. The district court rejected all three arguments. The district court concluded that the question of Fox's standing was irrelevant because the court had "an obligation to implement the mandate issued by the Eleventh Circuit even without the request of any party." The district court also found that, according to controlling case law, it was unable to review or alter the mandate from the court of appeals, as the parties' settlement agreement did not present new evidence or an intervening change in controlling law , the only circumstances under which the district court held it would have discretion to review the court of appeals' mandate. The district court also concluded that implementing the law would not constitute "manifest injustice," as it would be "neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law," the standard for a court making that finding. As a result, the district court granted an Order of Permanent Injunction, effective December 1, 2006, that permanently enjoined and restrained EchoStar from retransmitting "a performance or display of a work embodied in the primary transmission of any network station affiliated with ABC, Inc., CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, or National Broadcasting Co." Introduced by Senator Allard and substantively identical to S. 4074 introduced in the 109 th Congress, section 2 would allow satellite broadcasters to retransmit signals originating in Denver to subscribers in two counties in Colorado that are in a local market comprised principally of counties located in another state. Introduced by Senator Sununu, co-sponsored by Senator Gregg, and identical to S. 4068 introduced in the 109 th Congress, it generally would allow a satellite broadcaster to continue retransmitting, despite the injunction, in states with a single full-power network station. Introduced by Representative Boren, it allows subscribers to receive the secondary transmissions of network stations located in Oklahoma so long as they either reside in Oklahoma but do not receive the secondary transmission of any network station located in Oklahoma or live in another state that contains a local market that includes some Oklahoma residents and the subscriber elects to receive the secondary transmission originating in Oklahoma. Introduced by Senator Salazar, it allows subscribers in certain counties in Colorado to receive secondary transmissions of network stations located in the state capital. It also permits subscribers who are located in a designated market area comprised primarily of counties outside of Colorado to receive retransmission of broadcast signals upon FCC approval and broadcaster agreement. Multiple pieces of legislation were introduced in the second session of the 109 th Congress, subsequent to the district court's order implementing the permanent injunction. Introduced by Senator Leahy and joined by 15 co-sponsors in the Senate and introduced by Representative Mollohan and co-sponsored by Representative Rahall in the House, it would have allowed in several limited circumstances, subject to additional conditions, a satellite provider to continue providing distant network service despite a court's permanent injunction. Introduced by Senator Sununu and cosponsored by Senator Gregg in the Senate and introduced by Representative Bass and cosponsored by Representative Bradley in the House, it generally would have allowed a satellite broadcaster to continue retransmitting, despite the injunction, in states with a single full-power network station. Introduced by Senator Allard, the relevant portion, section 2, with some caveats, would have allowed subscribers in two counties in Colorado to choose to receive transmissions of any network station located in Denver, regardless of whether they would otherwise qualify as an unserved household. Introduced by Senators Stevens and cosponsored by Senators Allard, Ensign, and Murkowski, in the Senate and introduced by Representative Boucher and joined by 18 co-sponsors in the House, it would have permitted a court to approve a settlement agreement reached by at least one plaintiff and one defendant in litigation that resulted in the issuance of a permanent injunction.

On May 23, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the District Court for the Southern District of Florida to enjoin EchoStar Communications Corporation from retransmitting all programming originating on any station affiliated with ABC, Inc.; CBS Broadcasting, Inc.; Fox Broadcasting Co.; or National Broadcasting Co. The district court complied, rejecting EchoStar's last-minute arguments and partial settlement agreement and ordering the injunction imposed effective December 1, 2006. At issue before the Eleventh Circuit was whether EchoStar had violated the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA), as amended, which grants a limited statutory license to satellite carriers transmitting distant network signals to private homes if the subscribers cannot receive local signals, and the scope and consequences of violating SHVA. The court of appeals determined that EchoStar engaged in a pattern or practice of violating SHVA on a nationwide scale and, consequently, that SHVA required the court to impose a nationwide injunction against EchoStar for its improper retransmission of programming. This was a different legal conclusion than that reached by the district court, which had concluded that because of EchoStar's cessation of the violation, SHVA did not require "pattern or practice" liability, and the court consequently had discretion to order EchoStar to re-analyze its subscriber base, in compliance with SHVA, and to limit termination to subscribers found ineligible under the court-supervised analysis. Subsequent to the district court's orders implementing the court of appeals' decision, multiple bills were introduced in the 109th Congress—S. 4067, S. 4068, S. 4074, S. 4080, H.R. 6402, H.R. 6340, and H.R. 6384—that would have allowed EchoStar to recommence retransmission of distant network programming under varying circumstances. Several bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress: H.R. 602, S. 124, S. 258, and S. 760.

In November 1985, the Congress directed the Army to destroy the Department of Defense’s (DOD) stockpile of unitary chemical weapons. The stockpile is stored at eight Army installations in the continental United States and one installation on the Johnston Atoll in the Pacific Ocean. It consists of various lethal weapons, such as rockets, bombs, and projectiles, and bulk containers that contain nerve and mustard agents. Exposure to the agents can result in death. In 1993, the United States signed the U.N.-sponsored Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and the Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, commonly referred to as the Chemical Weapons Convention. The United States agreed to dispose of (1) binary chemical weapons, recovered chemical weapons, and former chemical weapon production facilities within 10 years and (2) miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel within 5 years of the date the convention becomes effective. If ratified by the U.S. Senate, the convention becomes effective 180 days after the 65th nation ratifies the treaty, but not sooner than January 13, 1995. Under the terms of the convention, chemical weapons buried prior to 1977 are exempt from disposal as long as they remain buried. In the United States, burial was a common disposal method for chemical warfare materiel until the late 1950s. Should the United States choose to excavate the sites and remove the chemical weapons, the provisions of the convention would apply. DOD officials estimate that the convention will enter into force in fiscal year 1996. In the fiscal year 1993 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 102-484), the Congress directed the Army to report on its plans for disposing of all nonstockpile chemical warfare materiel within the United States. In 1993, the Army issued a report describing the nonstockpile chemical materiel, potential disposal methods, transportation alternatives, and disposal cost and schedule estimates. The report concluded that it would cost the Army $1.1 billion ($930 million in direct project disposal costs and $170 million in programmatic costs) to destroy, primarily by incineration, demolition, and neutralization, the nonstockpile chemical materiel required by the convention within the required time frames. Programmatic costs are associated with more than one disposal project or program category. For example, the portion of management and personnel costs that support more than one project is considered programmatic costs. Also, estimated costs to procure and test equipment to be used at more than one site are included in the programmatic cost estimate. The Army also reported that it would cost $16.6 billion ($12.04 billion in direct disposal costs and $4.56 billion in programmatic costs) to recover and destroy, primarily by incineration and neutralization, buried chemical materiel within 40 years. These estimates are considered rough order of magnitude estimates, typically used when a program is not fully developed. According to program officials, the Army plans to issue a supplement to its 1993 survey and analysis report, which will include revised cost and schedule estimates, in mid-1995. Appendix II describes the Army’s nonstockpile chemical warfare materiel. The Army Chemical Demilitarization and Remediation Activity, formerly named the Army Chemical Materiel Destruction Agency, is responsible for storing, transporting, and disposing of nonstockpile chemical warfare materiel. The extent to which other federal and state agencies will be involved in the program depends on the location and particulars of the nonstockpile chemical materiel. Appendix III describes federal and state agencies’ roles and responsibilities for the nonstockpile disposal program. As of November 1994, the Army had not issued a comprehensive implementation plan to dispose of nonstockpile chemical warfare materiel. Moreover, based on the Army’s experience with the stockpile disposal program, it is likely to be several years before the Army can develop a disposal plan that includes reliable cost and schedule estimates.The Army’s 1993 report provides an initial scoping of the magnitude of effort required to safely destroy all nonstockpile chemical materiel in the United States if so directed. However, because of uncertainties about the nature and magnitude of the materiel or the disposal methods to be used, the Army recognizes that its $17.7-billion cost estimate for the nonstockpile disposal program cannot be relied on for budget purposes. Appendix IV lists the disposal methods used by the Army to develop its program cost and schedule estimates. Whenever possible, the Army plans to dispose of nonstockpile chemical materiel on-site. However, there may be occasions when it is not feasible or practical for the Army to do so, and transportation to another disposal location may be required. Factors the Army intends to consider are population proximity and density, chemical weapon type, condition of the munitions, and public safety and environmental policy. In addition, the opinions and concerns of the affected states, local governments, and the public will affect the Army’s decisions. For example, there is strong public opposition to incineration and transportation of chemical weapons across state boundaries. The Army’s level of knowledge and stage of planning by category of nonstockpile materiel are summarized in table 1. The locations and quantities of binary chemical weapons are well-documented and understood by the Army. Binary weapon systems principally involve an artillery projectile and components of the bigeye bomb. The projectile is composed of chemical elements, a metal casing, and explosive components. Although the bigeye bomb was never produced or stockpiled, some associated chemical elements must be destroyed. Although the method for destroying binary chemical weapons has not been determined, the Army estimates that, subject to the availability of funds, it can destroy the binary weapons within 10 years for $190 million. According to Army officials, the chemical elements in binary weapons are not lethal agents until they are combined during flight to a target; therefore, handling and disposing of the chemical elements and components should not pose any major problems. Some of the disposal options being considered for binary weapon components are incineration, landfill, crushing, and smelting. The actual disposal method will be selected by the Army after a comprehensive environmental review. The Army has a good understanding of miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel to be destroyed and has documented them by location, configuration, quantity, and type. However, changes are likely to occur as materiel is added or deleted as a result of the Chemical Weapons Convention verification process. The materiel is predominantly metal containers and munitions components. Some of the components contain explosive charges that may need to be extracted before disposal. Despite an uncertainty about the disposal method, the Army estimates that, subject to the availability of funds, it can destroy the miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel within 5 years for $210 million. According to Army officials, disposal options are numerous since most of the materiel is not contaminated with a chemical agent. The options include incineration, smelting, and crushing. However, the decision on disposal methods will be based on (1) the location, configuration, and type of materiel, (2) results of the required environmental analyses and studies, and (3) input from the affected states, local governments, and the general public. The Army has some information on the recovered chemical weapons that it must dispose of, but the inventory will change as additional weapons are recovered. According to Army documents, chemical weapons have been recovered from range-clearing operations, chemical burial sites, and research and development test areas. As of November 1993, there were 7,056 recovered chemical items in the Army’s inventory, consisting of mortar cartridges, projectiles, bombs, German rockets, chemical agent identification sets, and bulk containers. With appropriate funding, the Army estimates that the destruction of recovered chemical items can be completed within 10 years, at a cost of $110 million. The Army believes that handling and disposing of recovered chemical weapons will be difficult as (1) they are more likely to have deteriorated than other nonstockpile materiel and (2) the identity of the agent is unknown in 25 percent of the weapons. The Army is studying several destruction options, including transportable incineration and neutralization systems. However, the actual method for destroying the recovered chemical weapons cannot be selected until after the Army completes the required technical and environmental studies. The Army has identified former chemical weapon production facilities that need to be cleaned up. They consist of buildings and equipment for producing, loading, storing, and assembling chemical munitions and agents. These facilities are located in four states and are in various degrees of contamination and deterioration. The Army estimates that it will take 10 years and $420 million to dispose of former chemical weapon production facilities. However, the Army has no experience in destroying former production facilities in compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is still in the process of determining the levels of contamination, identifying potential problems in the demolition process, and determining how to safely dispose of the buildings and their components. Some of the disposal options being considered are incineration of contaminated materiel and demolition of uncontaminated facilities and equipment. The final disposal decision will not be made until comprehensive environmental studies are completed with the participation of the affected states, local governments, and the public. The Army has limited and often imprecise information about the nature and extent of buried chemical materiel. However, it has begun to develop site characterization, excavation, removal, and treatment procedures for the burial sites. Since burial was considered to be the final disposal act, little record-keeping was done for burial activities and additional sites are likely to be identified. Available records indicate that some burial sites may still contain active chemical agents and explosives; therefore, they pose a threat to human health and the environment. According to Army officials, the lack of knowledge about buried chemical warfare materiel has created considerable difficulty in selecting appropriate disposal methods. The Army has conducted various analyses, including comprehensive documentation surveys, site visits, and interviews, to identify potential burial sites. Even at well-documented sites, the actual amount, chemical agent, condition, and type of buried materiel will remain relatively unknown prior to excavation and visual identification. Based on preliminary analyses, the Army has identified potential chemical warfare materiel at 215 burial sites in 33 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington, D.C. (See fig. 1.) The Army has determined that 30 of the 215 potential burial sites warrant no further remediation activity. This determination is based on the Army’s site assessment, prior completed remedial work, or the restricted accessibility of the site. The Army is studying (1) several different on-site disposal technologies, (2) the plausibility of leaving the materiel in the ground while controlling access to the site and containing potential contamination, and (3) transportation of the materiel to an Army facility capable of storage and destruction. Prior to excavation, the Army will conduct soil samples and metal detection surveys as well as install monitoring wells to estimate the nature and extent of contamination and develop remedial alternatives. The Army could excavate by hand, which has been frequently used in the past. It is also studying the use of robotics in excavating buried materiel, although acceptable technology is not readily available. According to Army officials, mechanical means are more likely to cause a chemical release or detonation. The actual excavation method for recovering buried chemical warfare materiel cannot be selected until the Army completes further technical and environmental studies and the public has been involved in the Army’s selection. The Army estimates that it will cost $12.04 billion, plus $4.56 billion in programmatic costs, and take 40 years to recover and dispose of the buried chemical materiel. It included the estimated costs (1) of fixed incinerators for three of the four large burial sites, (2) for capping the remaining large site, and (3) of transportable incineration and neutralization systems for small sites. The transportable incineration and neutralization systems, when developed, will comply with safety and environmental requirements and be capable of moving or being moved from one disposal site to another. The Army expects the systems will use a batch-style process to treat relatively small quantities of chemical warfare materiel. Appendix V contains our case study of the Army’s investigation and disposal activities at the Spring Valley chemical burial site in Washington, D.C. Remediation of the Spring Valley site took 2 years and cost $20.22 million. The recovered chemical warfare materiel has not yet been destroyed. Because both chemical disposal programs involve similar environmental requirements and potentially similar disposal methods, many of the lessons learned from the stockpile disposal program may apply to the nonstockpile program. In the 1990s, we reported that the Army did not adequately anticipate and plan for (1) the time needed to obtain the necessary environmental approvals and permits for the stockpile disposal program and (2) the strong public opposition to the chemical weapons incineration process. Further, we reported that the stockpile program had been delayed by design, equipment, and construction problems at the new disposal facility at Johnston Atoll. As a result of these factors, the estimated cost of the stockpile disposal program increased and the Army’s destruction schedule slipped. According to Army officials, they have applied some lessons learned, such as the Army’s experience with environmental compliance procedures and research of alternative disposal methods from the stockpile program, to the nonstockpile disposal program. However, lessons learned were not discussed in the Army’s 1993 survey and analysis report on the nonstockpile program. In addition, because the Army based its disposal program and estimates on numerous assumptions as well as generic cost categories and work statements, we could not determine the effects of the lessons on the Army’s nonstockpile planning process and estimates. Prior to recovering, storing, moving, or destroying nonstockpile chemical warfare materiel, the Army must comply with federal and state environmental laws and regulations. These laws and regulations differ from state to state and change frequently. In its 1993 report, the Army reported that changes to environmental regulations could significantly affect its estimated disposal cost and schedule for the nonstockpile disposal program. Even when state regulatory agencies grant the Army permission to recover, move, or dispose of nonstockpile materiel, the Army is not insulated from legal actions by concerned citizens and groups. Previously, we reported that because of the Army’s difficulty in anticipating the time needed to comply with environmental requirements and to obtain environmental approvals and permits, the chemical stockpile disposal program cost more and took longer than planned. Army facilities must have environmental permits for the storage and disposal of the nonstockpile chemical materiel, and the methods for transporting and disposing of the materiel must adhere to appropriate environmental regulations and be based on comprehensive studies. In general, state governments are authorized, under federal environmental statutes, to adopt federal concepts and to promulgate and implement additional rules and regulations, which in some instances, are more stringent than federal standards. For example: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended, is likely to apply to most aspects, including transportation and storage, of the nonstockpile disposal program. Under the act, the Environmental Protection Agency may authorize individual states to administer and enforce hazardous waste programs in lieu of the federal program. The act also allows states to establish requirements more stringent than federal standards. For example, the states of Kentucky and Indiana enacted legislation that require the Army to demonstrate the absence of any acute or chronic health or environmental effects from incineration of chemical weapons before an environmental permit will be granted. There are miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel, former chemical weapon production facilities, and five potential burial sites located in these states. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act provides overall cleanup procedures for nonstockpile sites and incorporates the standards of other federal and state statutes if they are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the cleanup process. A specific sequence of activities, guaranteeing the participation of federal and state agencies and the public in key decisions, must be followed before cleanup of a nonstockpile site proceeds. The Hazardous Materials Transportation Act governs the transportation of most nonstockpile chemical materiel and limits the movement of the materiel without special permits, licenses, and authorizations. The act delegates regulatory and enforcement responsibilities to the states but limits some state regulations. Nevertheless, states may still implement routing restrictions, transportation curfews, notification deadlines, and public right-to-know requirements. The Army anticipates that each state the materiel originates in, passes through, or terminates in will have some jurisdiction over part of the transportation program. The nonstockpile disposal program has not reached the stage where appropriate laws, regulations, and concerns can be specifically identified for each location with nonstockpile chemical materiel. The applicability of laws and regulations to the recovery, transportation, storage, and disposal of nonstockpile materiel ultimately depends on the circumstances of the materiel. The participation of the states, local governments, and the public also affects the Army’s decisions concerning the transportation and disposal of the nonstockpile materiel. With respect to the nonstockpile program, the Army’s planning process must cover at least 185 potential burial sites with various environmental conditions and considerations, 29 different states with state-oriented environmental laws and regulations, numerous local governments, and the general public. As demonstrated in the stockpile disposal program, there is considerable public opposition to the incineration of chemical munitions or agents. However, the Army based its 1993 preliminary cost and schedule estimates on the use of incinerators to destroy potentially large portions of its nonstockpile chemical materiel. The opposition centers around concerns about adverse health effects and environmental hazards. This opposition, which has come from several citizen groups, environmental organizations, and state governments, has extended the environmental review and approval process and resulted in postponing the construction and operation of fixed incinerators. The actual disposal methods for the nonstockpile program will be selected by the Army after comprehensive environmental reviews are completed with the participation of the affected states, local governments, and public. In our 1994 report on the stockpile disposal program, we concluded that alternative technologies were unlikely to reach maturity in time to destroy the chemical weapons stockpile because they are in the initial development stages and over a decade away from full operations. Similarly, it is unlikely that these alternative technologies, if ever operational, will be available within the Chemical Weapons Convention’s established time frames for the nonstockpile disposal program. According to Army officials, they believe that the neutralization process will be operational in the 1996-97 time frame. The Environmental Protection Agency has stated that any proposed chemical disposal technology would have to undergo the same type of rigorous analysis and evaluation that the incineration process has gone through—a process that has required at least 9 years. The nonstockpile disposal program is vulnerable to change because it depends on disposal methods and destruction rates that have not been demonstrated. In our 1991 report on the stockpile program’s cost growth and schedule slippages, we concluded that the Army had limited experience with destroying stockpile chemical weapons and was unfamiliar with types of technical and mechanical problems to expect. As a result of these problems, the Army has not achieved its expected disposal rates for the stockpile program. Similarly, no nonstockpile chemical disposal project has been completed. Therefore, little procedure, cost, schedule, or engineering data are available, and the Army’s proposed disposal methods and estimated destruction rates have not yet been demonstrated. In its 1993 report, the Army concluded that the technical risk for the nonstockpile disposal program was high because none of the disposal projects were completed. The Army also concluded that if effective processes or procedures were not discovered, it would have to fund “a major research and development program.” The Army has reported that unforeseen events, such as an accidental chemical release or explosion, would increase the cost and duration of the nonstockpile disposal program. For example, the Army’s stockpile disposal facility at Johnston Atoll was shut down on March 23, 1994, and restarted again on July 12, 1994, because of a chemical agent release. According to Army officials, the release was small—approximately 11 milligrams. In addition, because of a hurricane and subsequent damage, the Johnston stockpile disposal facility was shut down on August 25, 1994, for more than 2 months. We recommend that the Secretary of the Army ensure that lessons learned from the stockpile disposal program are systematically incorporated into the nonstockpile planning process and establish milestones for developing accurate and complete cost data to effectively plan for and control future program expenditures. We conducted our review from June 1993 to November 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Unless you publicly announce this report’s contents earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the Chairmen, House and Senate Committees on Armed Services and on Appropriations; the Secretaries of Defense and the Army; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon request. Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. In reviewing the Army’s nonstockpile chemical disposal program, we interviewed and obtained data from officials of the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of the Army, the Army Chemical Demilitarization and Remediation Activity, the Army Chemical and Biological Defense Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We also met with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials to discuss and collect data on environmental and legal issues related to the nonstockpile disposal program. We did not include overseas abandoned chemical warfare materiel in our review. To identify lessons learned from the Army’s stockpile disposal program, we reviewed our previous reports and testimonies and their supporting documentation. To assess the estimated disposal cost and schedule, we analyzed pertinent documentation and discussed the estimation methodology and problems that could affect the cost and duration of the program with Army and contractor officials. To assess the extent and nature of the nonstockpile disposal program, we visited Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado; the former Raritan Arsenal, New Jersey; and the Spring Valley site, Washington, D.C. As requested, we did not obtain official agency comments, but we discussed our findings with officials from DOD and the Army and incorporated their views where appropriate. Binary chemical weapons: Chemical weapons formed from two nonlethal elements (called precursors) through a chemical reaction after the munitions are fired or launched. Binary weapons were manufactured, stored, and transported with only one of the chemical elements in the weapon. The second element was to be loaded into the weapon at the battlefield. As of November 1993, the precursors for the binary chemical weapons are stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas; Tooele Army Depot, Utah; and Umatilla Depot Activity, Oregon. Miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel: Materiel designed for use in the employment of chemical weapons, including unfilled munitions and components and support equipment and devices. According to Army records, miscellaneous materiel are stored at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Anniston Army Depot, Alabama; Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky; Dugway Proving Ground, Utah; Johnston Atoll, Pacific Ocean; Newport Army Ammunition Plant, Indiana; Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas; Pueblo Depot Activity, Colorado; Tooele Army Depot, Utah; and Umatilla Army Depot Activity, Oregon. Recovered chemical weapons: Chemical weapons recovered from range-clearing operations, chemical burial sites, and research and development test areas. According to the Army’s 1993 report, recovered items are stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Anniston Army Depot, Alabama; Dugway Proving Ground, Utah; Johnston Atoll, Pacific Ocean; Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas; and Tooele Army Depot, Utah. Former chemical weapon production facilities: Government-owned or -contracted facilities used to (1) produce chemical agents, precursors for chemical agents, or other components for chemical weapons or (2) load or fill chemical weapons. These facilities are located at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; Newport Army Ammunition Plant, Indiana; Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas; and Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Colorado. Buried chemical warfare materiel: Chemical warfare materiel, which are buried on both private lands and military installations, consisting of various munitions, bombs, rockets, and containers that may have been contaminated with nerve, blister, blood, or choking agents. At some sites, chemical munitions and agents were drained into holes in the ground, covered with lime or burned in an open pit, and finally covered with earth. Based on preliminary analyses, the Army has identified potential chemical warfare materiel at 215 burial sites in 33 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Washington, D.C. The Army has determined that 30 of the 215 potential burial sites warrant no further remediation activity. This determination is based on the Army’s assessment of the potential burial site, prior remedial work, or accessibility to the site. The U.S. Army Chemical Demilitarization and Remediation Activity is responsible for implementing the destruction of all U.S. chemical warfare-related materiel, including the chemical weapons stockpile and nonstockpile chemical materiel, and for ensuring maximum protection to the environment, general public, and personnel involved in the destruction. The activity’s office of Program Manager for Nonstockpile Chemical Materiel is responsible for collecting and analyzing data on nonstockpile chemical materiel; identifying and assessing sites with possible buried chemical warfare materiel; coordinating the transportation of recovered chemical weapons to locations for interim storage; destroying recovered chemical warfare materiel on-site as needed to protect the general public and environment; researching, developing, evaluating, and selecting disposal methods for all destroying binary chemical weapons, miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel, recovered chemical weapons, and former production facilities in accordance with the Chemical Weapons Convention, in compliance with public safety and environmental requirements and regulations, and in coordination with the potentially affected public; and reclaiming and destroying buried chemical warfare materiel in the interest of safeguarding the general public and environment. Although the Army Chemical Demilitarization and Remediation Activity has overall responsibility for disposing of nonstockpile chemical materiel, other organizations within or outside DOD contribute to the disposal program. The involvement of the following organizations depends on the location and particulars of the materiel, storage area, or burial site: The Army Corps of Engineers provides technical support for site investigations, recoveries, and site restorations to Army and DOD organizations and is responsible for cleaning up formerly used defense sites. Restoration activities concerning the handling and disposal of nonstockpile chemical warfare materiel are coordinated with and authorized by the Army Chemical Demilitarization and Remediation Activity. The Technical Escort Unit, the Army Chemical and Biological Defense Agency, is responsible for the escort of nonstockpile chemical materiel, emergency destruction of chemical munitions, and emergency response to chemical agent incidents. The Army Environmental Center develops and oversees environmental policies and programs for the Army. The Army Surgeon General’s office provides advice to Army commands on health and safety issues related to handling, transporting, and processing chemical agents and materiel. The Air Force Civil Engineer provides program management and technical support to Air Force commands and installations on environmental compliance and restoration programs. The Environmental Protection, Safety & Occupational Health Division, Office of Naval Operations, provides environmental policy and management support to Navy activities on environmental or safety-related programs. The Office of Installation Services and Environmental Protection, Defense Logistics Agency, provides environmental policy and management support to the agency’s field commands and installations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency enforces federal laws protecting the environment and ensures that regulations mandated by federal statutes are followed. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reviews and provides recommendations on the Army’s plans to transport or destroy chemical warfare materiel in order to help ensure public health and safety. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration oversees and regulates safety and health conditions at the workplace. The U.S. Department of Transportation enforces regulations governing the transportation of hazardous or nonhazardous materiel. State governments and communities affected by the nonstockpile disposal program provide information for and have input into the Army’s decision-making process. They also review and comment on the Army’s planning and decision documents; grant necessary permits; and monitor and enforce their state, regional, and local statutes. The responsibilities for remedial activities differ between burial sites located on active defense installations and formerly used defense sites. At active installations, the installation commander has overall responsibility for remedial activities at the potential burial sites. The Army Corps of Engineers and the Army Environmental Center support the installation commander in site investigation, excavation, and environmental cleanup. At formerly used defense sites, the Corps of Engineers has overall responsibility for site investigations, planning, excavations, and environmental cleanups of the potential burial sites. In both instances, the Army Chemical Demilitarization and Remediation Activity is responsible for the transportation, interim storage, and destruction of recovered chemical warfare materiel. The activity is also responsible for the development of the equipment and technologies to safely dispose of the materiel. In January 1993, a construction crew unearthed World War I-era chemical and high-explosive munitions during routine residential construction activities in an area known as Spring Valley in Washington, D.C., setting in motion emergency recovery and removal operations, called phase I of Operation Safe Removal. Over 140 items, including mortars, projectiles, and debris, were recovered and removed from the area by the Army’s Chemical and Biological Defense Agency during this phase. Some of the recovered items were subsequently analyzed and determined to contain chemical agents. The Army Corps of Engineers is currently proceeding with phase II of Operation Safe Removal, which is the comprehensive investigation and cleanup of the Spring Valley site under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program. In 1917, the Chemical Warfare Service of the U.S. Bureau of Mines leased 92 acres from American University to establish the American University Experiment Station. The station was used by the Chemical Warfare Service, with personnel from the Army and the Navy, to research and conduct testing of chemical warfare items. Subsequently, additional land was leased northwest of American University to field test the chemicals and munitions developed at the station. In 1918, the Chemical Warfare Service was transferred from the Bureau of Mines to the War Department, and the station was renamed Camp American University Experiment Station, encompassing a total of 425 acres. During this period, the War Department also leased 84 acres northeast of American University to establish Camp Leach. This camp had mainly tents and barracks, along with staging and training areas for troops. According to the Army, no chemical testing was conducted at Camp Leach. From mid-1917 through 1918, 100,000 troops were trained in trench warfare and the handling of chemical munitions at Camps American University and Leach. In addition, mortars and projectiles were test-fired and chemical munitions were tested in various areas of the camps. The American University Experiment Station was also used to prepare and test chemical warfare agents and munitions for possible use develop procedures and methods to produce chemical warfare agents and develop gas masks, protective clothing, canisters, incendiaries, smokes, and signals. In December 1918, the War Department discontinued using Camps American University and Leach and burned all temporary buildings that had become unusable. In 1920, the department vacated the remaining buildings. The trenches and pits were filled in and the land returned to the original owners. Between 1942 and 1946, the Department of the Navy leased 5 acres and 15 buildings from American University to establish the Navy Bomb Disposal School. The Navy used the property and buildings for educational purposes. The Spring Valley site is a residential community located in northwest Washington, D.C., near the American University, schools, churches, a community park, hospital, a theological seminary, a new housing development project, and approximately 1,200 residences. The community is comprised of upper middle and upper income families, and the houses are valued from $600,000 to $1 million. The area immediately surrounding the initial discovery site consists of recently constructed or under-construction homes. Since the initial discovery of the munitions, the area of concern expanded to approximately 616 acres based on archival records. Operation Safe Removal is conducted under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act procedures and provisions in two operational phases. The Chemical and Biological Defense Agency was responsible for phase I, or the emergency recovery and removal operational phase. Phase I was completed on February 2, 1993. The Army Corps of Engineers is proceeding with phase II, or the long-term investigation and cleanup operational phase of the site with the fieldwork scheduled to be completed in January 1995. On January 5, 1993, a construction crew unearthed a World War I-era chemical and high-explosive munitions disposal pit while installing a sewer line in the Spring Valley area. This discovery set in motion phase I of Operation Safe Removal. Shortly after the discovery, the Army’s emergency response force confirmed that several of the unearthed munitions were filled with chemical warfare materiel. Personnel in protective clothing recovered the visible munitions, sifted through the dirt piles, and segregated the liquid- and solid-filled munitions. During this period, residents of the Spring Valley area were evacuated. On the third day of the initial discovery, the Army activated a service response force to complete the removal operation. The service response force consisted of specialists to coordinate the on-site safety, security, and medical support; historical research; public affairs; hazard analysis; legal advice; environmental issues; and transportation of the recovered munitions. Within a few days, specialists from the Army Corps of Engineers, Army Chemical Demilitarization and Remediation Activity, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Centers for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, American National Red Cross, local police and fire departments, and others were on-site. Numerous miscellaneous items, tons of scrap, and over 140 munitions were removed from the Spring Valley site during phase I. Most liquid-filled munitions were flown off-site by helicopter to Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and then air-shipped to Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, for storage. The solid-filled munitions were flown to Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia, for explosive destruction. The miscellaneous items were moved off-site for testing, and the scrap materiel were sent to a landfill in New York. Both on-site and off-site analyses confirmed that some of the recovered munitions contained or at one time contained chemical or toxic smoke agents. Table V.1 shows the disposition of the recovered materiel. The Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the overall project management, investigation, design, and construction activities during phase II of Operation Safe Removal. Its mission is to investigate and verify that no additional World War I-era munitions remain in the Spring Valley area and, if necessary, to excavate, remove, and destroy any munitions discovered. The decision to continue the investigation of the Spring Valley site was based on research of archival data, topographic maps, aerial photographs, and anecdotal information, which indicated that more areas of interest existed. The Army also conducted geophysical investigations, including ground conductivity surveys, magnetometer sweeps, and soil and water sampling at the Spring Valley site. A computer system merged these data and maps and allowed the Corps of Engineers to create visual composite maps that summarized the investigations. Based on the results of the process, the Corps located suspected anomalies that required excavation to verify the presence or absence of munitions. The excavation process, which was approved in a safety plan, began with a Corps contractor mechanically digging to within 12 inches of the suspected anomaly, and then the process was turned over to the Army Technical Escort Unit for final excavation, exposure, identification, and removal. The excavation recovered several munitions and potential chemical warfare materiel. A brief description of some of the recovered materiel follows: A corroded piece of pipe, similar to shipping containers for liquid and gases during World War I, was recovered and moved to Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, for storage in June 1993. A 75-mm projectile, identified as a suspected chemical weapon, was recovered and flown to Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas, for storage in October 1993. Shrapnel from several expended 75-mm projectiles were recovered and disposed of as scrap. A Livens smoke projectile was recovered and destroyed by incineration as waste munition in April 1994. Three glass vials, containing a clear liquid, were recovered and moved to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, for testing in November 1994. Also, various nonmilitary metallic materiel encompassing ferrous rocks, a bundle of 14-gauge wire, a 28- by 10-foot steel plate, and construction debris were recovered and moved to other locations. As part of the Spring Valley Safety and Work Plans, an interim holding area and helicopter pad were constructed at a cost of $284,000. They were designed to provide immediate, although temporary safe storage, for any recovered munitions prior to being moved by Army helicopter out of the Spring Valley area. The holding area and pad contain a fire suppression system, air filtration system, lightning arrester system, and beacon lights. They are located on federal property and are government controlled for security reasons. The interim holding area contains three storage magazines, one for high-explosive munitions and two for chemical munitions. The two chemical magazines are modified to include fire suppression and air filtration systems. The magazines are enclosed by a timber structure and earth embankment that provides a minimum of 3 feet of soil encompassing the magazines. No munition will remain in the interim holding area for longer than 10 consecutive days. The Corps of Engineers intends to demolish the holding area and helicopter pad once excavations at Spring Valley are completed. Recovered chemical weapons were moved by helicopter from the interim holding area to Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, and then flown to Pine Bluff Army Arsenal, Arkansas, for storage and future destruction. Recovered high-explosive, conventional munitions were moved by helicopter from the area and transported to Letterkenny Army Depot, Pennsylvania. No shipment of other hazardous waste will be moved into or out of the interim holding area. As of November 29, 1994, the Army Corps of Engineers estimated that the investigation and cleanup of the Spring Valley site would cost $20.22 million. (See table V.2.) The estimate includes the costs of completing phase I operations, researching and investigating the site, constructing and operating the interim holding area, removing and sampling the recovered munitions and materiel, fulfilling safety and environmental requirements, and performing management activities. The Army Corps of Engineers costs include support costs for the Army Technical Escort Unit; the Army Chemical and Biological Defense Agency; Washington, D.C., government; resident office facilities; community evacuation; and others. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the primary issues and concerns of the residents in Spring Valley are related to their personal safety, the effects of the presence of chemical munitions on the value of their property, the length of time their lives will be disrupted by the ongoing investigation and cleanup of the site, when the Spring Valley site will be certified safe and clear of dangerous munitions after Operation Safe Removal is completed, and the question of whether the Army is telling all that is known about or going on at the site. To address these issues and concerns, the Corps of Engineers developed a public involvement and response plan to promote efficient and effective communication among the Corps; various federal, city, and local agencies and officials; property owners; the housing development corporation; general public; and news media. The primary objectives of the plan are to (1) provide for clear and open exchange of information regarding current and planned investigation and cleanup activities, (2) address local community issues and concerns, (3) provide government agencies and the public the opportunity to participate in the Corps of Engineers’ planning and decision-making process, and (4) provide government agencies and the public with a centralized point of contact. According to the Corps of Engineers, the plan is flexible and can be modified as events, community issues and concerns, and situations change. We did not evaluate the effectiveness of the Army’s public involvement and response plan. David R. Warren, Associate Director Thomas J. Howard, Assistant Director Glenn D. Furbish, Senior Evaluator Mark A. Little, Evaluator-in-Charge Pauline F. Nowak, 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.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Army's nonstockpile disposal program, focusing on: (1) the Army's planning process for the nonstockpile disposal program; (2) the Army's estimated disposal cost and schedule; and (3) applicable lessons learned from the Army's stockpile disposal program. GAO found that: (1) the Army has not finalized plans for its nonstockpile disposal program because it has not fully identified the amount of materiel to be destroyed or appropriate disposal methods; (2) the Army believes it can dispose of binary chemical weapons within 10 years for $190 million, miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel within 5 years for $210 million, and recovered chemical weapons within 10 years for $110 million; (3) the Army has limited information on buried chemical warfare materiel, which it estimates will take 40 years to find and destroy at a cost of $16.6 billion; (4) the Army's nonstockpile disposal program will likely be affected by the same issues as the stockpile program, including compliance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations, obtaining environmental approvals and permits, and strong public opposition to chemical weapons incineration and transportation; (5) although the Army said it applied lessons learned from the stockpile disposal program to the nonstockpile disposal program, its 1993 survey and analysis report on the nonstockpile program did not discuss those lessons; and (6) the Army's estimated cost and schedule for the nonstockpile disposal program are likely to increase, since the Army has limited experience in destroying nonstockpile materiel and will likely encounter difficulties similar to those experienced in the stockpile disposal program.

In fiscal year 1995, the Department of Defense (DOD) plans to spend over $79 billion for research, development, test, evaluation, and production of weapon systems. While DOD has acquired some of the most technologically advanced and effective weapon systems, DOD has often been criticized for not acquiring the systems in the most efficient manner. As weapon system programs progress through the phases of the acquisition process, they are subject to review at major decision points called milestones. The milestone review process is predicated on the principle that systems advance to higher acquisition phases by demonstrating that they meet prescribed technical specifications and performance thresholds. Figure 1.1 illustrates the DOD’s weapon system acquisition process. At milestone 0, a determination is made about whether an identified mission need warrants a study of alternative concepts to satisfy the need. If warranted, the program is approved to begin the concept exploration and definition phase. At milestone I, a determination is made about whether a new acquisition program is warranted. If warranted, initial cost, schedule, and performance goals are established for the program, and authorization is given to start the demonstration and validation phase. At milestone II, a determination is made about whether continuation of development, testing, and preparation for production is warranted. If warranted, authorization is given to start the engineering and manufacturing development phase. Also, approval of this phase will often involve a commitment to low-rate initial production (LRIP). At milestone III, a determination is made about whether the program warrants a commitment to build, deploy, and support the system. DOD acquisition policy states that program risks shall be assessed at each milestone decision point before approval is granted for the next phase. The policy adds that test and evaluation shall be used to determine system maturity and identify areas of technical risk. Operational test and evaluation (OT&E) is a key internal control to ensure that decisionmakers have objective information available on a weapon system’s performance, to minimize risks of procuring costly and ineffective systems. OT&E has been defined as (1) the field test, under realistic conditions, of any item of (or key component of) weapons, equipment, or munitions for the purpose of determining its effectiveness and suitability for use in combat by typical military users and (2) the evaluation of the results of such a test. Over a period of many years, the Congress has been concerned about the performance of weapon systems being acquired by DOD. As early as 1972, the Congress required DOD to provide it with information on the OT&E results of major weapon systems before committing them to production. However, the Congress continued to receive reports from the DOD Inspector General (DOD-IG), us, and others that (1) weapon systems were not being adequately tested before beginning production, (2) fielded systems were failing to meet their performance requirements, and (3) OT&E being conducted on weapon systems was of poor quality. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Congress enacted a series of laws to ensure that U.S. military personnel receive the best weapon systems possible and that the U.S. government receives best value for the defense procurement dollar. Among other things, these laws specified that independent OT&E be conducted; established the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E), and assigned it specific oversight duties and responsibilities; specified that OT&E of a major defense acquisition program may not be conducted until DOT&E approves the adequacy of the plans for that OT&E; required that a major system may not proceed beyond LRIP until its initial OT&E is completed; and required that DOT&E analyze the results of OT&E conducted for each major defense acquisition program and, prior to a final decision to proceed beyond LRIP, report on the adequacy of the testing and whether the results confirm that the items tested are operationally effective and suitable for combat. In the late 1980s, the Congress found that DOD was acquiring a large portion of the total program quantities, using the LRIP concept, without successfully completing OT&E. In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (P.L. 101-189), the Congress addressed this situation by including a definition of LRIP and a requirement that the determination of the LRIP quantities to be procured be made when a decision is made to enter engineering and manufacturing development. According to the act, LRIP was defined as the minimum quantity needed to (a) provide production-representative articles for OT&E, (b) establish an initial production base, and (c) permit orderly ramp-up to full-rate production upon completion of OT&E. In the conference report for the act, the conferees indicated that they did not condone the continuous reapproval of LRIP quantities that eventually total a significant percentage of the total planned procurement. Also, the conferees granted an exception to the LRIP legislation for ship and satellite programs because of their inherent production complexity, small number, high unit cost, and long unit production periods. However, they directed the Secretary of Defense to develop regulations that capture the spirit of the LRIP legislation as it applies to these programs. This special consideration for ships and satellites carries with it additional reporting requirements to improve the oversight of these programs. Finally, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, the Congress required that the Secretary of Defense ensure that appropriate, rigorous, and structured testing be completed prior to LRIP of any electronic combat or command, control, and communications countermeasure system. Senators David Pryor and William V. Roth, Jr., requested that we review DOD’s use of LRIP in the acquisition of major defense programs. Specifically, the Senators asked that we determine whether LRIP policies were resulting in the production of systems with adequate performance capabilities and the legislation underlying the LRIP policies was adequate. We analyzed the legislation and DOD policies governing the production and testing of weapon systems, particularly those dealing with (1) the purposes of LRIP, (2) the criteria or requirements for entering LRIP and full-rate production, and (3) the testing requirements related to this process. We used the results of our extensive body of work from the past decade or so on defense acquisition programs and the acquisition processto determine whether the LRIP concept, as currently authorized and practiced by DOD, has resulted in a premature commitment to production of both major and nonmajor systems. We reviewed the 1993 report of the DOD-IG on LRIP and held discussions with the DOD-IG staff. We gathered and summarized data on numerous ongoing system acquisition programs (both major and nonmajor programs) and supplemented that information with discussions with officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military services. In addition, we gathered and analyzed information on the advantages and disadvantages of conducting OT&E before LRIP (for both major and nonmajor systems). We also held discussions with those officials on DOD’s current acquisition strategies and OT&E policies and practices. This review was conducted from April 1993 to May 1994 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Our extensive body of work over the years has amply demonstrated that improper usage of LRIP has been widespread. Many major and nonmajor systems from each of the services have been prematurely committed to production, which often results in problems being found after a substantial number of units have been produced and a significant commitment made to the entire procurement program. In addition, contrary to the statutory emphasis on minimum LRIP quantities and conferee statements, many programs continue in LRIP for prolonged periods. DOD’s continuing reluctance to employ the discipline of early OT&E is evident in each of the services and in many major and nonmajor programs. Adequate controls have not been established over the start and continuation of LRIP. A requirement to successfully complete enough independent testing in an operational environment to ensure that the item meets its key performance parameters before LRIP starts would be feasible in most cases and would be an effective management control over the premature start of production. Over the years, we have found numerous instances from all three services in which production of major and nonmajor systems was permitted to begin and continue based not on the systems’ technical maturity, but on schedule or other considerations. DOD has frequently committed programs to production without assurance that the systems would perform satisfactorily. Many of the weapon systems that start production prematurely later experience significant operational effectiveness and/or suitability problems. As a result, major design changes were often needed to correct the problems, additional testing was needed to verify that the corrective action was effective, and costly retrofits were needed for any delivered units. A few of the many examples of premature and extensive commitments to production of major and nonmajor systems are shown in the following tables. Table 2.1 shows systems that entered LRIP before any operational tests were conducted and later experienced significant problems during the tests. Table 2.2 shows systems that were subjected to early operational tests but were allowed to enter LRIP even though the performance deficiencies were not corrected. Programs that enter production prematurely often require more time and resources than originally planned to correct problems and to meet the requirements for full-rate production. LRIP is often continued, despite the evidence of technical problems, well beyond that needed to provide test articles and to establish an initial production capability. As a result, major production commitments are often made during LRIP. In the conference report for the LRIP legislation, the conferees stated that they did not intend to authorize the continuance of LRIP on an indefinite basis. Nevertheless, the existing LRIP legislation does not include any specific principles or guidelines on when and how programs should begin LRIP, on the type and amount of testing to be done before LRIP, on how much LRIP can or should be done, or under what circumstances LRIP should be curtailed or stopped. Instead, the emphasis has been placed almost entirely on the full-rate production decision, at which point the law requires, among other things, that a report be provided on the adequacy of the testing conducted and an assessment be made of the system’s operational effectiveness and suitability. Although programs are delayed getting approval for full-rate production, LRIP is rarely stopped or slowed significantly. As a result, the decision to start LRIP, in many cases, is also the de-facto full-rate production decision. DOD’s written policies provide that acquisition strategies be event-driven and link major contractual commitments and milestone decisions to demonstrated accomplishments in development, test, and initial production. However, DOD policies state that a primary goal in developing an acquisition strategy shall be to minimize the time and cost of satisfying a need consistent with common sense and sound business practices. In addition, DOD’s policies state, but without detailed requirements, that OT&E should be conducted throughout the acquisition process. However, while DOD is statutorily required to conduct OT&E before full-rate production is approved, DOD’s policies permit LRIP to begin before any OT&E is conducted. The point at which LRIP begins is not a required milestone under DOD policy. As a result, for many major defense acquisition programs, the services do not plan to conduct any OT&E prior to the start of LRIP. It has been and continues to be the exception, rather than the rule, for programs to include OT&E before LRIP starts. In some instances, the services plan to start LRIP even though they plan to use developmental or prototype units for their initial OT&E, not LRIP units. Although not required by written DOD or Navy policy, the Navy now performs a limited phase of OT&E before LRIP to prepare for later phases of OT&E on some of its programs. However, these programs are not required to meet specific testing-related criteria before entering LRIP. As shown in table 2.2, even when some OT&E was conducted prior to the start-up of production, identified problems were not verified as corrected, and significant performance problems emerged later in the program. Over the past several years, DOD has stated that it planned to reemphasize the need for OT&E as early as possible in the acquisition process. However, we have not detected any reemphasis on early OT&E, and DOD’s 1991 revision of its key acquisition directives did not address this issue. DOD acquisition and testing officials concede that there has not been any major reemphasis on early OT&E. In fact, DOD has recently supported legislative proposals that would reduce the current overall requirements to conduct OT&E. DOD has recognized that reducing the amount of production prior to completing development provides for greater design maturity, which increases the likelihood of meeting system requirements and avoiding retrofit costs. In commenting on our 1992 report, DOD officials said they were lessening the amount of concurrent development and production in weapon programs due to the end of the Cold War. In 1992, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition also stated that the need to replace existing weapon systems in order to maintain a significant technological advantage was no longer as urgent. However, acquisition strategies of many current programs do not reflect these positions. DOD’s acquisition practices continue to stress the importance of minimizing the time to deploy new or improved weapon systems. Highly concurrent acquisition strategies continue to be featured in many current major and nonmajor programs, with little, if any, OT&E expected until well after the start of production and a significant commitment is made to the procurement of the system. Our analysis of the current selected acquisition reports shows that many programs continue to postpone initial OT&E until well after the start of production. LRIP is expected to be approved in February 1996 for the Army’s Secure Mobile Anti-Jam Reliable Tactical Terminal. Initial OT&E will not be completed until July 1998, by which time a total of 125 units, or 3 years of LRIP, is planned to be approved out of a total program quantity of 367 units. The LRIP decision for the Air Force’s F-22 aircraft program is expected in June 1998, and initial OT&E is to be conducted from March to November 2001. Thus, 1 year of preproduction verification and 4 years of LRIP—80 aircraft out of a total quantity of 442 units—are planned to be approved before completion of OT&E. The Navy plans to procure 106 of the 630 planned Multifunctional Information Distribution Systems before OT&E is completed in December 2000 and a full-rate production decision is made in June 2001. In addition, 42 prototype systems are to be built as part of the system development effort. These programs feature major commitments to LRIP before development is completed and before any OT&E is completed, even though developmental prototypes are expected to be available for testing in these programs. Accordingly, a substantial and frequently irreversible commitment to production will have been made before the results of independent testing are available to decisionmakers. In its 1993 report, the DOD-IG found that major defense acquisition programs were entering LRIP without meeting development, testing, and production readiness prerequisites. As a result, the DOD-IG concluded that DOD incurred excessive program risk of overcommitment to production of systems without obtaining assurance that the design is stable, potentially operationally acceptable, and capable of being produced efficiently. Among other things, the DOD-IG recommended that DOD (1) provide guidance on the specific minimum required program accomplishments for entry into and continuation of LRIP and (2) require that program-specific exit criteria be established for entry into and continuation of LRIP. DOD is currently considering what, if any, actions will be taken in light of the DOD-IG’s recommendations. The decision to begin LRIP should be given much more attention because decisionmakers find it very difficult to stop or slow down programs once they are in production. Given the cost risks involved and DOD’s inability or unwillingness to curtail production after it starts, we agree with the DOD-IG that controls are urgently needed over the start and continuation of LRIP. A key criterion for all programs beginning LRIP should be the completion of a phase of independent testing in an operational environment. During such testing, some problems should be expected. However, enough realistic testing should be conducted for the services’ independent testing agencies and/or DOT&E to be able to certify to the decision authority that (1) the system’s developmental testing is essentially complete and the basic results have been validated in an operational environment, (2) the system has clearly shown that it can meet the key parameters among its minimum acceptable performance requirements, (3) the system has clearly demonstrated the potential to fully meet all of its minimum acceptable requirements for performance and suitability without major or costly design changes, and (4) the system should be able to readily complete its remaining OT&E in time to support the planned full-rate production decision. Comprehensive testing of a system’s operational suitability features, such as supportability, may not be possible during early independent testing. However, the testing should be sufficient to reveal major suitability problems. Conducting OT&E before LRIP will not, by itself, result in a better weapon system, but it is the best means available to guard against the premature start of production. Decisionmakers need verifiable information on system design maturity and where corrective actions are needed before production start-up. Every effort should be made to correct problems in development, not in production, because early fixes are less expensive, easier to implement, and less disruptive. In today’s national security environment, there should be very few cases in which an urgent need dictates that DOD start production without assurance that the system will work as intended. We realize that, for some programs, a significant effort (personnel and facilities) may be needed to produce one or more prototypes for a phase of early OT&E. These programs would typically involve inherent fabrication complexity, small procurement quantities, high unit cost, and long unit production periods. To suspend that type of effort while OT&E is underway could be costly and disruptive. Alternatively, key subsystems should be independently tested on surrogate platforms before production. Once underway, production should be limited until acceptable OT&E results are obtained on the entire system. We believe that LRIP should be used to focus on (1) addressing producibility and product quality issues; (2) producing just enough systems to support initial OT&E, to prove out the production process, and to sustain the production line; and (3) testing those systems and correcting any deficiencies. A limit on the quantity that can be produced under LRIP would provide an opportunity to correct problems that are identified during initial OT&E, without incurring the risk of overproducing under the LRIP phase. We recommend that the Secretary of Defense revise DOD’s acquisition policies in the following ways: Require that, before entry into LRIP, programs (with the exception of ships, satellites, and those other programs that involve inherent fabrication complexity, small procurement quantities, high unit costs, and long unit production periods) plan, buy prototypes for, and conduct enough realistic testing for the service’s independent testing agency and/or DOT&E to be able to certify to the decision authority that (1) the system’s developmental testing is essentially complete and the basic results of that testing have been validated in an operational environment; (2) the system has clearly shown that it can meet the key parameters among its minimum acceptable performance requirements; (3) the system has clearly demonstrated the potential to fully meet all of its minimum acceptable requirements for performance and suitability without major or costly design changes; and (4) the system should be able to readily complete its remaining OT&E in time to support the planned full-rate production decision. Require that those programs excluded from the requirement to test prototypes instead test all key subsystems in an operational environment before entry into LRIP. Adopt the recommendations made by the DOD-IG regarding controls over the start and continuation of LRIP such as (1) providing guidance on the specific minimum required program accomplishments for entry into and continuation of LRIP and (2) requiring that program-specific exit criteria be established for entry into and continuation of LRIP. We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense work with the service secretaries to ensure that these policies are implemented for the acquisition of both major and nonmajor systems. The legislation defining LRIP has not been effective in accomplishing its purpose, which was to limit the commitment to major production quantities pending satisfactory completion of OT&E. Therefore, we recommend that the Congress legislatively mandate (1) that certain OT&E requirements be met before LRIP may start and (2) specific limits on the number of units allowed to be produced during LRIP. Specifically, the Congress may wish to require that all defense acquisition programs (major and nonmajor) conduct enough realistic testing on the entire system or key subsystems to ensure that its key performance parameters are met before LRIP is permitted to start. In addition, the Congress may wish to (1) specify a percentage (10 percent, for example) of a system’s total procurement beyond which a program may not proceed during LRIP and/or (2) amend 10 U.S.C. 2400 (by deleting subsection (b)(3)) to preclude the use of LRIP authority to ramp-up the production rate prior to the successful completion of OT&E.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of Defense's (DOD) use of low-rate initial production (LRIP) in its systems acquisition programs, focusing on whether: (1) DOD LRIP practices result in the production of adequate systems; and (2) the legislation underlying LRIP policies is adequate. GAO found that: (1) despite congressional emphasis on the need for operational test and evaluation (OT&E) prior to system production, legislation and DOD policies permit LRIP to start before any OT&E is conducted because there are no specific guidelines on the type and amount of testing required prior to LRIP; (2) the lack of guidelines has resulted in substantial inventories of unsatisfactory weapons that need costly modifications and some deployments of substandard systems to combat forces; (3) correction of system deficiencies in prematurely produced systems lengthens production schedules and increases resource consumption; (4) major production decisions are often made during LRIP; (5) LRIP severely limits Congress' and DOD decisionmakers' options for dealing with deficient systems; (6) DOD needs accurate, independent information on system performance and suitability to minimize the risks of procuring costly and ineffective systems; and (7) in light of the current national security environment, there should not be an urgent need to start LRIP before system capabilities are adequately tested.

BSE and vCJD are among a group of diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE). Currently, there are no therapies or vaccines to treat TSEs, and a definitive diagnosis can only be made from a post mortem examination of the brain. The infective agent that gives rise to TSEs is generally thought to be a malformed protein, called a prion,which causes normal molecules of the same protein in the brain to become malformed. Prions cannot be killed by conventional heat, irradiation, or chemical disinfection and sterilization procedures. The precise amount of material needed to cause disease is unknown but is generally thought to be very small. TSE prions accumulate in central nervous system tissue—specifically the brain, spinal cord, and eye—but are also present in other body tissues of infected humans and animals. Other TSEs include Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (in humans), scrapie (in sheep), transmissible mink encephalopathy, and chronic wasting disease (in elk and deer). The original source of BSE is not known with certainty. However, evidence suggests that the practice of recycling the remains of diseased animals, specifically scrapie-infected sheep, into feed for livestock, including cattle, was responsible for the emergence and spread of BSE in the United Kingdom. In 1988, the United Kingdom banned the practice of feeding ruminant-derived protein to ruminants. Following this ban, the number of new cases of BSE-infected cattle declined from a high in 1992 of 32,280 new cases to a total of 1,312 cases in 2000, and to 526 cases as of September 30, 2001. About 2,500 cases of BSE have appeared elsewhere in 18 other European countries, as well as Oman, Canada, the Falkland Islands, and Japan, as a result of the exportation of contaminated feed and cattle (see fig. 1). The one BSE-infected cow found in Canada had been imported and was destroyed without entering the animal or human food chains. The BSE-infected cattle found in Oman (two animals) and the Falkland Islands (one animal) had also been imported. In 1996, experts in the United Kingdom reported the first cases of vCJD. They believed the victims contracted it by eating beef contaminated by central nervous system tissue from BSE-infected cattle. Although contamination of meat with central nervous system tissue could occur in many ways during the slaughtering and processing of cattle, the major suspect in these cases was meat removed by a system that mechanically recovered (by squeezing under pressure) the remaining meat left on carcasses after all accessible meat has been removed by knife. Prior to December 1995, when the United Kingdom banned the practice, mechanically recovered meat, which was included in many cooked meat products such as sausages, could legally have contained spinal cords. While scientists believe that at least several hundred thousand people may have eaten BSE-infective tissue, many believe vCJD is difficult to contract. As of November 2001, 112 people have had vCJD, of whom just over 100 had died, nearly all in the United Kingdom. Most vCJD victims have been young—the average age at death was 28—and half died within 13 months from the time they first showed symptoms. As figure 2 shows, cattle provide meat and a wide array of consumer products. Many of these products may pose at least a theoretical risk for BSE infection. For example, dietary supplements, vaccines, cosmetics, and surgical replacement tissue, as well as gelatin, are produced from bovine carcasses, central nervous system tissue, and blood. The rendering industry in the United States and elsewhere recycles animals and animal tissues considered unfit for human consumption into, among other things, animal feed; diseased animals are routinely part of such recycling. The United States trades extensively in animals and the full range of animal products. No test for BSE or TSE infectivity has been proven adequate for diagnosis in humans or animals before symptoms appear or for screening blood and other products. Tests to detect proteins from cattle in animal feed do not distinguish between milk and blood proteins that are allowed and meat and bone proteins that are not. Furthermore, methods to test animal feeds are based on the analysis of genetic material, bone, and protein, all of which are degraded or destroyed in the rendering process. The lack of unique genetic material associated with BSE prions has led scientists to look for other biological markers for the disease, such as accumulations of abnormal forms of the prion protein in various tissues. Development of valid, sensitive, rapid, and reliable tests for live animals is difficult because the specific agent has not been fully identified and elicits no detectable immune response. Furthermore, efforts are hampered by the limited scientific understanding of BSE and other TSEs, including when during the incubation period infectivity appears, what mechanism causes infection, and whether infectivity is ever present in blood. Four federal agencies are primarily responsible for overseeing the many imported and domestic products that could pose a risk of BSE and for surveillance programs designed to detect and monitor animal and human diseases: The U.S. Customs Service screens all goods entering the country to enforce Customs laws and laws for 40 other agencies. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service monitors the health of domestic animals and screens imported animals and other products to protect animal health. USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service monitors the safety of imported and domestically produced meat, poultry, and some egg products. FDA, within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), monitors the safety of all other foreign and domestic food products (including dietary supplements and animal feed), as well as vaccines for humans, drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, and the human blood supply. In addition, two other HHS agencies—the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health—monitor human health to detect vCJD should it appear and conduct research to better understand TSEs and the prions thought to cause them. In August 1997, FDA banned potentially BSE-infective animal proteins in feed for cattle and other ruminants. Proteins are added to feed to promote animal growth and can be derived from a number of sources, including animal meat and bone meal, fishmeal, and plant products. The feed ban prohibits the use of most animal-derived proteins in cattle feed. It also requires that, among other things, feed and feed ingredients that contain the prohibited proteins be labeled “Do not feed to cattle or other ruminants;” firms that handle both prohibited and nonprohibited feed and feed ingredients have procedures to ensure that the two are not commingled; and firms maintain records sufficient to track feed materials through their receipt and disposition for certain periods. The ban excludes animal blood and blood products, gelatin, plate waste, milk and milk protein, and protein derived from pigs and horses (and other equines). Renderers, feed manufacturers and blenders, and feed distributors are subject to the ban. Recent research on the ability of animals to be “silent” carriers of TSEs from another species raises questions about the advisability of including in feed for cattle, or other ruminants, proteins from animals such as pigs and horses that are currently not thought to be susceptible to BSE and other TSEs, according to researchers at the National Institutes of Health. Specifically, in November 2001 these researchers reported that even though mice experimentally infected with hamster scrapie did not develop clinical disease, infectivity persisted in the brains and spleens of the mice throughout their life spans. Although available laboratory methods were not sufficiently sensitive to detect the infectivity in these mice, the researchers could infect other mice and hamsters with tissue from the original asymptomatic mice. The European Commission—the executive and legislative body of the European Union— has had its Scientific Steering Committeeconduct assessments of the geographical risk of BSE for countries that requested an assessment. Between July 2000 and November 2001 these scientific experts issued assessments for 49 countries, including the United States, which the experts stated was unlikely to have BSE, but they also stated that the possibility could not be excluded. BSE differs greatly from foot and mouth disease (FMD). FMD is a highly contagious viral disease that primarily affects cloven-hoofed animals, including cattle, sheep, swine, and goats, and last appeared in the United States in 1929. In contrast to BSE, FMD does not threaten humans, rarely causes death in afflicted animals, and has an incubation period of 24 hours to 21 days. In addition, the virus that causes FMD can be killed using standard sterilization procedures. This report deals only with BSE. We also have a study underway, to be issued later in 2002, of federal measures to control the threat FMD may pose to U.S. livestock. The continuing absence of BSE in the United States today cannot be sufficiently ensured by current federal prevention efforts. The introduction and spread of BSE in the United States could stem from cattle and cattle- derived products imported from countries that subsequently developed BSE and from gaps in import controls, animal testing, and feed ban enforcement. As a result of these problems, consumers may unknowingly eat foods that contain central nervous system tissue from a diseased animal. Since 1989 and as recently as 2001, USDA and FDA have identified countries with BSE or at risk for BSE and issued import restrictions on ruminant-derived material from those countries. Figure 3 presents a timeline of the actions taken by USDA and FDA during that period. Figure 4 shows the countries on which the United States currently imposes trade restrictions for BSE-risk items. Although federal agencies have acted to reduce the possible ways that BSE-infected animals or products could enter the country, the United States has imported about 1,000 cattle; about 23 million pounds of inedible meat by-products, including meat and bone meal; about 101 million pounds of beef; and about 24 million pounds of prepared beef products during the past 20 years from countries where BSE was later found. These numbers represent a fraction of total imports in each category—0.003 percent of cattle, 0.665 percent of meat by-products, 0.314 percent of beef, and 0.728 percent of prepared beef products. In light of the long incubation period for BSE (up to 8 years), the possibility that some contaminated animals or products have entered the United States cannot be ruled out. The United States imported 334 breeding and dairy cattle from the United Kingdom between 1980 and 1989. According to USDA, 173 of these animals could have been used in animal feed or entered the human food supply. In addition, the United States imported 443 breeding and dairy cattle from continental Europe between 1983 and 1997, some of which may also have been used in animal feed or in the human food supply. Since 1996, USDA has placed under quarantine any of these imported cattle it has found still alive. These animals are monitored and, when they die, USDA obtains brain samples to test for BSE. Thus far, all tests on these animals have been negative. As of November 16, 2001, three head of cattle from the United Kingdom and five from continental Europe were still alive and being monitored. The United States also imported 242 cattle from Japan between 1993 and 1999. Japan reported its first case of BSE in September 2001. As of November 28, 2001, USDA had located 214 of these cattle. According to USDA, 24 of these cattle had gone to slaughter or to rendering, 40 had been exported, and 150 were still alive. USDA has begun monitoring those animals and is attempting to locate the remaining 28 cattle. In its evaluation of the potential for BSE in the United States, the Harvard study considered the ban on imports of cattle from the United Kingdom as one of the United States’ key prevention measures. The study assumed that remains from some of the cattle imported from the United Kingdom could have been used in animal feed, food for human consumption, or both. Although more than 95 percent of the study’s simulations, based on exposure to a low infective dose, resulted in no BSE cases in cattle, a few resulted in substantial numbers of cases. The study also assumed that cattle imported from continental Europe after 1996 had been traced and their movements controlled; it states that these cattle present virtually no risk for introducing BSE to the United States. However, the Harvard study did not take into account the 242 cattle imported from Japan between 1993 and 1999. The discovery of BSE in Japan occurred just before Harvard issued the results of its study. The United States also imported about 23 million pounds of inedible meat by-products—which would include meat and bone meal and other animal- derived meals, flours, and residues—between 1980 and 2000 from countries later found to have BSE (see fig 5.). However, the amount of meat by-products derived from cattle is uncertain because the code Customs uses to classify such shipments includes by-products from cattle or other animals. Likewise, any meat and bone meal imported under that code could be from cattle or other animals. While experts, including the Harvard researchers, see the risk of exposure posed by these shipments as extremely low, if any cattle feed contained BSE-infected meat and bone meal, it could create an opportunity to contaminate U.S. cattle. The beef and prepared beef products that the United States imported from countries that later found BSE, were for human consumption. According to scientific experts, meat products could represent a risk to people who ate them if the meat came from a BSE-infected animal (see figs. 6 and 7). Until February 2001, USDA regulations allowed the import of beef and beef products from countries with BSE or at risk of BSE if the facility that processed the meat did not receive, store, or process ruminant material from a country with BSE or at risk for BSE. In addition to the BSE risk posed by past imports, a small but steady stream of BSE-risk material may still be entering the United States through international bulk mail. USDA inspectors at a New Jersey international bulk mail facility have begun using new x-ray technology that clearly distinguishes organic from inorganic matter to screen packages for products that pose a risk of animal and plant diseases. At this facility, we saw USDA inspectors seize one package that contained beef soup mix from Germany, one of the countries from which the United States restricts trade in beef products. Inspectors also showed us a package from Ireland that was labeled “cutlery,” but contained corned beef. From May through October 2001, USDA inspectors, using the new x-ray technology, screened about 7 percent (about 116,000) of the over 1.5 million packages that passed through the New Jersey facility. Of the screened packages, 570 contained one or more at-risk beef or beef-derived products. However, USDA does not screen packages at the New Jersey facility during the 24 hours each week when inspectors are not on duty. According to the inspectors, the screening rate was low because only one or two inspectors are on duty at any time, and each has only seconds to visually inspect packages as they pass by on a conveyor belt. While all 14 international bulk mail facilities in the United States have some sort of x-ray technology that can distinguish organic from inorganic material, the new technology—used only at the New Jersey facility—provides greater accuracy and clearer imagery. The new technology is also compatible with the conveyor system and can be placed over the conveyor belt. USDA officials told us that the new x-ray technology would facilitate the inspection of international bulk mail arriving in the United States. At-risk items may also slip through federal inspections at ports of entry. Customs often finds discrepancies with the accuracy of importer-provided information during its annual reviews of trade compliance and, as a result, BSE-risk products may not be flagged for further inspection. For example, Customs found a shipment of animal feed ingredients incorrectly classified as pet food by the importer. It also found a shipment of animal feed identified by the importer as originating in Canada that inspectors discovered originated in Switzerland. For fiscal year 1999, Customs reported that importer-provided information on shipments of live bovine animals (e.g., cattle, bison, and buffalo) was inaccurate in over 24 percent of samples taken. Information on shipments of fresh or frozen beef was inaccurate in over 21 percent of samples and on shipments of animal feed in over 24 percent of samples. Additionally, the ever-increasing volume of imported shipments strains inspection resources for both FDA and USDA. In October 2001, we reported that during fiscal year 2000, FDA inspected about 1 percent of the over 4 million imported food entries under its jurisdiction. Additionally, FDA inspected less than one percent of the more than 146,000 entries of imported animal drugs and feeds. FDA has acknowledged that the increased volume of imports has severely hampered its ability to inspect a sufficient portion of imports. Specifically, while imported shipments under FDA’s jurisdiction have risen dramatically in recent years, the agency’s inspection staff has remained almost static since 1992. Prompted by bioterrorism concerns, the Secretary of Health and Human Services requested $61 million in October 2001 to hire 410 additional inspectors and other personnel to allow increased inspections of imported food products. In 1997 we reported that USDA’s inspection workload had increased dramatically since 1990; we concluded that USDA had little assurance that it was deploying its limited inspection resources at the ports of entry that are most vulnerable to the introduction of pests and diseases. USDA has acknowledged the lack of inspection coverage and, in the wake of foot and mouth disease outbreaks in Europe and other countries, authorized $32 million in fiscal year 2001 to hire 350 new inspection personnel and additional canine inspection teams at U.S. borders and ports of entry. USDA began testing animal brains to detect BSE in domestic cattle in 1990. This surveillance program consists primarily of collecting and analyzing brain samples from adult cattle with neurological symptoms and adult animals that were nonambulatory at slaughter. Testing animal brains is a key measure to detect BSE, and USDA’s surveillance program should build on current efforts to increase the number of brain samples tested each year, according to officials from organizations representing the beef and grain industries, state officials, and consumers, as well as federal officials. As table 1 shows, the number of samples collected and tested by USDA in its surveillance program has generally increased each year. The table also shows that a substantial portion of those samples have been taken from nonambulatory cattle since 1994, when USDA first began to collect this information. USDA has increased the portion of nonambulatory cattle because research has shown that this population includes animals that might have subtle neurological symptoms or injuries resulting from neurological impairment. In fiscal year 2001 these animals accounted for more than 90 percent of the 4,870 brains collected and tested by USDA. The remainder includes brain samples from animals rejected at slaughter for signs of neurological disease. In addition to increasing the sample size and the number of nonambulatory cattle tested, USDA has broadened its testing efforts. USDA tests samples using two complementary laboratory methods and conducts surveillance for two TSEs—scrapie in sheep and chronic wasting disease in deer and elk—that already exist in the United States. USDA officials and many scientific experts believe surveillance and eradication of scrapie and chronic wasting disease is important, in part, because of the suspected link between scrapie in the United Kingdom and the appearance of BSE, and because both have been experimentally transferred to other species. Although USDA has strengthened its surveillance efforts, the program does not include many samples from cattle that die on farms. Scientific experts consider these animals a high-risk population because they are generally older and the reasons for their death are often unknown. USDA told us that efforts to obtain samples more systematically from such animals are limited largely by the dispersed nature of the domestic livestock industry, the lack of adequate laboratory capacity to conduct the tests, and the lack of sufficient staff and time to collect the samples. When animals die on farms they may be buried on the farm, taken to landfills, or collected by renderers who recycle animals and other animal tissues into, among other things, animal feed. In 1998 USDA implemented a cooperative program with the rendering industry to ensure that carcasses of animals condemned at slaughter for signs of neurological disease are held until test results are completed. Under this program, USDA may share the expenses to store or dispose of carcasses during the testing period. USDA was not able to provide us with information on how frequently the program has been used, but it has been used only sporadically, according to USDA officials and the USDA veterinarians and renderers we spoke with in nine states and Puerto Rico. In its evaluation of the potential for BSE in the United States, the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis included animals that die on farms as a potential source of BSE exposure. According to their simulation model, excluding from the rendering process those animals that die on farms significantly reduces the potential for cattle to be exposed to BSE through animal feed. Harvard’s report also notes that farmers may not be willing to send animals displaying neurological symptoms to slaughter, thereby reducing the likelihood that infected animals would be inspected by USDA at slaughterhouses. Once dead, these animals might be rendered, as assumed in the simulation model, or disposed of on farms. According to USDA officials, when the Harvard study was issued to the public, the Secretary of Agriculture announced plans to more than double the number of BSE tests conducted in FY 2002 to more than 12,000. Federal and state officials and the scientific community agree that if BSE were to be found in a U.S. herd, a well-enforced feed ban would prevent its spread to other herds. State inspectors (who conduct about 80 percent of inspections) and FDA inspectors document their feed ban inspections on inspection forms. FDA headquarters compiles and maintains this information in a database, and it provided to us the information in that database through October 26, 2001. According to FDA’s data, more than 12,000 inspections have been conducted since 1997 at more than 10,000 firms, including renderers, feed manufacturers, feed haulers, and distributors, as well as at on-farm feed operations. According to FDA’s October 2001 quarterly update that summarized results of feed ban inspections, 364 firms were out of compliance. In addition, FDA believes that not all firms that should be subject to the ban have been identified and inspected, at least 1,200 or more based on industry estimates (see table 2). However, we could not verify these data because we found significant flaws in FDA’s database, which we discuss later in this report. FDA did not take prompt enforcement action to compel firms to comply with the feed ban. When we began this study, in April 2001, the only enforcement action FDA had taken was to issue two warning letters in 1999. The first letter was issued in May 1999—21 months after inspections began. However, since inspections began in 1997, FDA has reported hundreds of firms out of compliance—most often for failure to meet requirements to label feed that contained prohibited proteins or for including prohibited proteins in cattle feed. In our analysis of individual inspection forms, we found several instances in which firms were out of compliance in repeated inspections, yet FDA had not issued a warning letter. We also found instances in which firms were out of compliance but had not been reinspected for a year or more—and in some cases for more than 2 years. Between February and November 2001, FDA issued warning letters to another 48 firms. In addition, 17 firms voluntarily recalled feed, including 9 that had been issued a warning letter. As of November 30, 2001, FDA or states had reinspected 33 of the total of 50 firms that had been issued warning letters (2 in 1999 and 48 in 2001). Six of the firms were still out of compliance on reinspection. FDA has no enforcement strategy for feed ban compliance that includes a hierarchy of enforcement actions, criteria for actions to be taken, time frames for firms to correct violations, and time frames for follow-up inspections to confirm that violations have been corrected. According to FDA, rather than taking enforcement actions, it has emphasized educating firms subject to the feed ban about the ban’s requirements and working with those firms to establish cooperative relationships. FDA reported that some states might have taken enforcement actions, including requiring firms to recall noncompliant feed. However, FDA does not track enforcement actions taken by states; therefore, it does not know the extent of such actions. Even if FDA were to actively enforce the feed ban, its inspection database is so severely flawed that—until corrected—it should not be used to assess compliance. Nonetheless, FDA uses the database to manage and oversee compliance, respond to congressional inquiries about compliance, and keep industry and the public informed. From our review of FDA’s database of 12,046 feed ban inspection records (as of October 26, 2001), we found records lacked unique identifiers, were incomplete, contained inconsistent or inaccurate information, and were not entered into the database in a timely manner. Examples of the severe flaws we found include: Entries for 5,446 inspections—or about 45 percent of all inspections—lack information to uniquely identify individual firms. As a result, the data cannot be used to reliably determine the number of firms inspected, compliance trends over time, or the inspection history of an individual firm. In at least one case, the same unique identifier had been applied to six different firms and, in another case, a firm had two unique identifiers. In addition, we found 232 cases in which one or more inspections of the same firm lacked the unique identifier. Entries for 301 inspections of firms that handle prohibited proteins contain no response to whether feed was properly labeled; entries for 438 inspections of firms that handled both prohibited and non-prohibited proteins had no response to whether prohibited proteins were included in feed intended for cattle. Entries where responses to questions about feed labeling or whether prohibited proteins were included in feed intended for cattle indicated that the firms were in compliance; however, inspectors’ notes contained in other sections of the database contradicted the responses and indicated the firms were not in compliance. Inspections were not entered into the database. In assessing the warning letters, we discovered references to inspections that do not appear in the database. In fact, the inspection record for the firm that received the first warning letter—in May 1999—does not appear in the database. Inspections were not entered into the database in a timely fashion. We found several instances where inspections dating back to 1998 and 1999 were not entered into the database until mid to late 2001—too late for FDA to reinspect in a timely fashion if violations existed. Also, too much time had passed for FDA to reliably clarify inconsistent or conflicting information or obtain answers to questions left blank on the inspection forms. Moreover, any compliance information FDA reported to congressional overseers and others would not have been reliable. Several states did not use FDA’s inspection form, but instead used their own state-developed forms. Because the questions were different, certain assumptions had to be made when these data were entered into FDA’s database. The HHS Office of Inspector General noted, in a June 2000 report, that many FDA agreements with states, whose inspectors conducted about 80 percent of feed ban inspections, do not ensure that states routinely provide FDA with standardized information on the inspections they conduct. In September 2001 FDA revised the inspection form and asked states to use the revised form. States are free to ask other questions during the inspections, but FDA has also asked them to include FDA’s questions in FDA’s format. The database is incomplete. It does not include all firms subject to the feed ban. FDA officials relied on the personal knowledge of state and FDA field staff and on membership lists from industry groups to identify and locate firms. However, our review of membership records for the National Renderers Association—for the years 1998 to 2001—disclosed 21 rendering firms that were not in FDA’s database. According to association records, those firms process meat and bone meal and other products that could contain proteins subject to the feed ban. FDA did not count data entries with blanks—no responses—in the selected data fields it uses when it reports on compliance. Therefore, when FDA provided compliance information to the Congress—and when it publishes that information electronically—the data are misleading and the number of firms identified as out of compliance are undercounted. For example, for the 364 firms identified as out of compliance in FDA’s October 2001 update—the source for information in table 1 above—FDA assumed that all entries with blanks in the compliance fields were in compliance. However, we found entries where firms had blanks in the data fields FDA used, yet contained inspector comments in other fields showing that the firms were not in compliance. FDA also did not include these firms on published lists of noncompliant firms. About half of the inspection records contain inspector comments. On those entries where blanks also existed, the inspector comments showed that firms were in compliance in some instances and out of compliance in others. An FDA official told us that the database was not originally intended to track compliance of individual firms, but rather to guide the agency’s efforts to educate firms subject to the ban by illustrating particular states or practices that needed more intensive focus. However, FDA has no information system other than the inspection database to track compliance with the feed ban. FDA has not placed a priority on oversight of the feed ban. From the implementation of the feed ban in August 1997 until early 2001, one person in FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine was responsible for feed ban management. Although state and FDA District Office inspectors conducted the inspections, this individual designed the inspection form, compiled inspection data, and made enforcement decisions—in addition to that individual’s other duties. Furthermore, the inspection form had not been pretested—a standard practice to ensure that questions are interpreted and answered consistently. In the course of our review, FDA attempted to clean up the database so that it could serve as an accurate management tool. However, in October 2001, FDA turned that effort over to a contractor to (1) review the completeness of the feed ban inspection database to ensure that findings have been captured, including written comments by the inspectors on inspection forms; (2) analyze the data and present the findings in a report; and (3) review the current enforcement strategy to determine program strengths and weaknesses and to make recommendations for improvements that will better support FDA’s compliance goals. FDA expects this work to be completed by February 2002. Also in October 2001, FDA entered into a separate contract to reconfigure the data so that they can be incorporated into FDA’s primary database for all other inspection activities. Work on the two contracts is to be carried out concurrently. This work is to be completed in the spring of 2002. In evaluating the potential for BSE in the United States, the Harvard study noted that the feed ban is key to preventing the spread of BSE. It added, however, that the effectiveness of the feed ban is somewhat uncertain because compliance rates are not “precisely” known. Harvard’s simulation model assumed the feed ban was compromised to some extent by on-farm feeding of prohibited proteins to cattle and by some noncompliance with the requirement that feed containing prohibited protein carry a warning label. The study’s observations underscore the importance of the problems we found in FDA’s oversight and enforcement of the feed ban. Some consumers in the United States regularly eat cattle brains and central nervous system tissue. Brains are a routine part of the diet in several cultures. Eating such foods would not pose a safety concern unless they were from a BSE-infected animal. However, most consumers would not realize that central nervous system tissue could be found on many beef cuts and in several beef products. For example, bone-in meat cuts, such as T-bone steaks, are stripped directly from the animal’s vertebrae and may contain portions of the spinal cord. Many other edible products, such as beef stock, beef extract, and beef flavoring, are frequently made by further processing (e.g., boiling) the skeletal remains (including the vertebral column) of the carcass after most of the meat has been removed. USDA officials told us that they would expect to find central nervous system tissue in these foods. However, based on food quality—not food safety—concerns, USDA does prohibit central nervous system tissue in beef products that are labeled as meat and that are made using technology that mechanically removes meat from the bones of slaughtered animals in a way that approximates deboning by hand. Products made from meat using this technology include sausages and hot dogs. USDA has found central nervous system tissue in meat that was mechanically removed using a technology known as advanced meat recovery systems. USDA estimates that 28 beef processing plants use this technology and, in 2000, recovered 257 million pounds of beef. According to a beef industry official, this technology recovers up to 10 additional pounds of meat per carcass. Because it is not a food safety issue, USDA has not rigorously enforced its prohibition against the presence of central nervous system tissue in meat extracted by using the advanced meat recovery system technology. Since 1997, USDA has tested a total of 63 beef samples from 18 of the plants that use this technology. Of those samples, 12 tested positive for central nervous system tissue. USDA has not tested beef samples from the other plants that use the technology in at least 4 years. When its tests found central nervous system tissue in samples, USDA did not track to ensure that the processing plants relabeled the contaminated meat products as something other than meat. USDA plans to use the Harvard study to help it determine whether the presence of central nervous system tissue should be a food safety matter—whether all or some central nervous system tissue should be considered unsafe for human consumption. The Harvard study notes that a ban on the use of spinal cords, brains, and vertebral columns in human food or animal feed significantly reduced the risk of exposure in its simulation model. As part of its evaluation of the implications of the study, USDA will issue a Federal Register Notice after January 2002 to solicit comments on, among other things, the safety of the advanced meat recovery technology and any meat that comes from the vertebral column. In addition, FDA’s TSE Advisory Committee—composed of USDA, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other federal experts, as well as academic scientists and medical experts, and consumers—recommended, in October 2001, that FDA consider taking regulatory action to ban brains and other central nervous system tissue from human food because of the potential risk of exposure to BSE-infected tissue. According to FDA, it is considering banning central nervous system tissue from the foods it regulates as well as from cosmetics and over-the-counter drugs. FDA told us it is taking this action to ensure that consumers are protected from consuming BSE- contaminated products. Representatives of two consumer groups we interviewed expressed concern that central nervous system tissue remains a part of food generally and that the use of advanced meat recovery technology could expose consumers unknowingly to such tissues. If BSE were discovered in U.S. cattle, beef exports and domestic beef consumption would drop, damaging many sectors of the economy, according to federal economists. If the infected cattle were to enter the food supply, some people might develop vCJD. The economic impacts of a BSE outbreak in the United States would include the direct impacts on certain sectors, such as the beef and livestock industries, and indirect impacts on related industries, such as the animal feed and restaurant industries. In addition, an assessment of economic impacts would include costs relating to the public sector, such as farmer compensation payments, increased spending on research and development, and increased costs to government agencies. While the extent to which economic impacts would pass from one sector to another is unclear, these effects would eventually channel through to several sectors of the economy. Figure 8 lists the sectors and some of the likely qualitative impacts within each sector in the event of a BSE outbreak in the United States. To date, however, there are no comprehensive economic studies of the total direct and indirect economic impacts of a potential BSE crisis in the United States. A complete assessment of these impacts is difficult to forecast given the uncertainties surrounding key assumptions, such as the source of the BSE, the number and timing of cases, and the public’s reaction. For instance, if BSE were to enter the country through the importation of meat and bone meal rather than live cattle imports, the economic consequences could be more pervasive, because the meat and bone meal could potentially contaminate many cattle. Another difficulty in estimating impacts is the problem of determining how the increased costs of BSE would be passed on from the farmer to the final consumer in the beef-marketing channel. Moreover, studies that estimate losses due to BSE from other countries may not be totally applicable to the United States. Food safety experts have noted that perceptions about food safety risks vary from country to country, and the consumer impacts of BSE in one country may not be applicable to another country. If BSE were found here, the economic impact on the $56 billion beef industry and related industries could be devastating, according to USDA economists. For instance, consumers in the United States, in response to reports of BSE-infected cattle, may for a period of time restrict their purchases of beef and products containing beef. That response would be felt not only by the cattle and beef industries, but also by peripheral industries. For example, hamburger chains and soup and frozen dinner manufacturers could see dramatic declines in business. Similarly, in international trade, a loss in beef exports may be more devastating for the United States than for other beef-producing countries. In particular, since the United States exports nearly 10 percent (by volume) of its total beef production (about 25 percent of total world beef exports), the trade sector is also critical in estimating total economic impacts. As a first approximation, however, FDA officials estimated the direct effects to the beef and livestock industries based on a 1998 study of the economic impacts of the first year of the BSE outbreak in the United Kingdom. They estimate that if the United States were to experience an outbreak as severe as the one in the United Kingdom, the beef industry could lose as much as $15 billion in sales revenue. Specifically, these costs were based on the assumption that in the event of a BSE crisis, U.S. domestic and export demand would decrease by the same amounts as in the United Kingdom—a 24 percent decline in domestic beef sales and an 80 percent decline in beef and live cattle exports. In addition, the FDA estimated the livestock sector would incur a minimum of $12 billion to slaughter and dispose of at-risk cattle. This estimate was based on an assumption that the United States would need to destroy about four times as many cattle as the United Kingdom. However, the FDA analysis did not include the offsetting effects of government payments, as occurred in the United Kingdom, shifts in consumer demand for other types of meat, or the effects on other related sectors of the economy. Overall, however, FDA noted that those firms primarily engaged in the production of beef products would incur severe economic disruption. In terms of the health risks, if infected cattle were to enter the food supply, some people might develop vCJD; however, scientific experts disagree about how many people could develop the disease. Many experts believe that vCJD is difficult to contract and, therefore, that relatively few people would develop the disease. However, other scientific experts believe that, because of the long incubation period, no one can predict whether few or many might contract vCJD. According to some scientific experts in the United Kingdom, as many as 100,000 people in Europe may develop vCJD as a result of the BSE outbreak there. This could include Americans who lived in countries where BSE occurred. In addition to these direct health implications, an outbreak of BSE in the United States would carry an emotional toll on consumers who believe federal regulators will protect them from this devastating disease. Moreover, according to a National Institutes of Health scientist, the appearance of vCJD could cast doubt on the safety of organ donations and the U.S. blood supply. Any health implications would translate into medical treatment and related financial and economic costs, such as lost productivity. The United States prohibited the import of cattle and other ruminants 3 to 5 years earlier than many other countries. Its surveillance program to test cattle brains for BSE also met international targets for the number of animals tested earlier than many other countries. However, the United States has a more permissive feed ban than other countries—one that allows cattle feed to contain proteins from horses and pigs. FDA is reviewing whether these ingredients should continue to be allowed in cattle feed. Finally, as in most countries that are BSE-free, including the United States, cattle brains and other central nervous system tissue can be sold as human food. The European Commission’s Scientific Steering Committee has had scientific experts assess countries, including the United States, for the risk that BSE could enter the country through imported animals and feed and be spread through recycled animal proteins in feed. As of November 30, 2001, risk assessments had been completed for 49 countries. According to the scientific experts, most European countries are likely to have BSE, even if it has not yet been confirmed by surveillance testing, or to have BSE at a higher level of incidence than thought. The scientific experts assessed the United States as unlikely to get BSE, but indicated that the possibility could not be excluded. Table 3 presents the results of the 49 BSE risk assessments completed through November 30, 2001. Using information on each country’s past and present potential exposure and ability to stop the spread of BSE, the scientific experts qualitatively assessed the probability that an animal in a country is infected with BSE. The assessments relied on data voluntarily supplied by the countries and on discussions with the officials familiar with BSE prevention efforts from each country on (1) the potential import of BSE via live cattle or contaminated feed, (2) the adequacy of surveillance testing to detect the presence of BSE, (3) cattle feeding and rendering practices, and (4) the use of potentially infective tissue from cattle. The scientific experts also focused on the import of infected animals and animal feed as the only initial sources of infection and on animal feed as the only source of spread. The experts did not evaluate the risks from consumer products that could contain BSE-infected tissue. The scientific experts reported using a conservative, reasonable worst-case approach, whenever data or information from countries were insufficient. Based on our analyses of the 49 risk assessments, the United States compared with the other countries as follows in terms of the potential to import BSE, surveillance testing, cattle feeding practices, and use of potentially infective tissue. Potential to import BSE. The United States acted earlier than many countries to ban the import of cattle and meat and bone meal for use in cattle feed from the United Kingdom and other countries where BSE had appeared. The United States was one of three countries that banned trade in cattle from the United Kingdom by 1989; six other countries did so by 1994. Nine other countries had formal bans in place by 1996, the year that the United Kingdom stopped all trade in cattle. Actions to halt trade in cattle with other countries where BSE had appeared has been variable, and the United States and some other countries phased in restrictions as cases appeared. Also, many of the assessed countries, particularly those in South America and in Africa, had little or no trade in cattle with the United Kingdom or other countries where BSE had appeared. With regard to the import of meat and bone meal for use in cattle feed, the United States banned imports from the United Kingdom in 1991 and phased in restrictions from other countries as cases of BSE appeared. While one country banned such imports from the United Kingdom as early as 1978, due to concerns about foot and mouth disease, a few countries imported significant amounts of meat and bone meal from the United Kingdom and other BSE countries as recently as 1999. Surveillance testing to detect BSE. The United States is one of three countries that reported meeting Office International Des Epizooties (OIE)-recommended cattle testing levels by 1994. Most countries either had not met OIE levels at the time of their assessments or met the levels after 1994. However, nine countries, including six with BSE, had started or planned to start targeting cattle that die on farms in their surveillance testing. In their assessments of the United States and the other countries, the scientific experts most often recommended that countries improve surveillance largely by including tests of high-risk populations, such as animals that die on farms. Cattle feeding practices (feed bans). Of the 49 countries assessed, 41 had some sort of feed ban in place; however, those bans varied on the extent that they allowed protein from mammals in feed for cattle. Compared to other countries with a ban, the United States and 16 others allow at least some mammalian protein in feed for cattle. For example, the United States and Canada allowed cattle feed to contain protein from horses and pigs. The remaining 24 countries with a feed ban (including 13 that have BSE) prohibit all mammalian protein in cattle feed, although 9 allow such protein in feed for pigs and poultry. Four of the 24 countries have more stringent bans that prohibit mammalian protein in feed for all farm animals—a practice the European Commission asked its member countries to adopt on a temporary basis in 2000. In the assessments, scientific experts found that the potential for commingling prohibited protein with cattle feed existed in most countries. Enforcing existing feed bans was the second most common recommendation made by the scientific experts. In October 2001, FDA officials held a public hearing to elicit comments on, among other things, whether the existing feed ban exemptions should be modified. As of December 17, 2001, FDA had not announced whether it would propose any changes to the ban. Use of potentially infective tissue. Most of the countries assessed that had not found BSE-infected cattle, including the United States, generally allowed the sale of brains and other central nervous system tissue in human food. Nearly half of the countries with BSE prohibited this high-risk tissue in human food, and at least three countries—the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Switzerland—banned mechanically recovered beef, such as that used in meat pies, that may contain central nervous system tissue and had been linked to vCJD. However, the Court of Auditors—the investigative agency for the European Commission—found that efforts by European Union countries to remove potentially high risk tissue from the human food and animal feed chains have not been fully implemented and that the countries could not reach agreement on what constituted high-risk tissue. BSE and vCJD are devastating, incurable, inevitably fatal diseases. If they enter the country, they can bring dire economic consequences to the cattle and beef industries. Therefore, forceful federal prevention efforts are warranted to keep BSE away from U.S. shores. Nevertheless, Customs has reported significant error rates in importer-provided information for BSE-risk shipments, import controls over bulk mail are weak, and inspection capacity has not kept pace with the growth in imports. Because of these import weaknesses—and because BSE may have entered in imports from countries that have since developed the disease—BSE may be silently incubating somewhere in the United States. If that is the case, then FDA’s failure to enforce the feed ban may already have placed U.S. herds and, in turn, the human food supply at risk. FDA has no clear enforcement strategy for dealing with firms that do not obey the feed ban, and it does not know what, if any, enforcement actions the states may be taking. Moreover, FDA has been using inaccurate, incomplete, and unreliable data to track and oversee feed ban compliance. Furthermore, if there is even a slight chance that BSE is incubating in U.S. cattle, consumer groups believe that the American public has the right to know when food and other consumer products may contain central nervous system tissue that may pose a risk to the food supply. The importance of informing consumers is heightened by concerns raised in the Harvard study and by FDA’s TSE Advisory Committee regarding the potential public health risk posed by consuming such tissue. In addition, although USDA has been proactive in increasing the number of cattle brains tested, it does not test many animals that die on farms, even though it recognizes that older animals and animals that die from unknown causes are at higher risk for BSE. To better ensure that the United States is protected from the emergence and spread of BSE, we make the following recommendations: In order to strengthen inspections of imported products that could pose a risk of BSE, we recommend that the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and of Agriculture, in consultation with the Commissioner of Customs, develop a coordinated strategy, including identifying resource needs. In order to strengthen oversight and enforcement of the animal feed ban, we also recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services direct the Commissioner of FDA to take the following actions: Develop a strategy, working with states, to ensure that the information FDA needs to oversee compliance is collected and that all firms subject to the feed ban are identified and inspected in a timely fashion. Develop an enforcement strategy with criteria for actions to address firms that violate the ban and time frames for reinspections to confirm that firms have taken appropriate corrective actions. Track enforcement actions taken by states. Ensure that, as contractors modify the inspection database, they incorporate commonly accepted data management and verification procedures so that the inspection data can be useful as a management and reporting tool. In order to help consumers identify foods that may contain central nervous system tissue, we recommend that, as USDA evaluates whether such tissue from cattle poses a health risk, the Secretary of Agriculture consider whether some interim action, such as public service announcements or caution labels or signs, might be appropriate to advise consumers that certain beef cuts and beef products may contain central nervous system tissue; and better enforce the existing labeling requirement for products that contain beef extracted using advanced meat recovery technology and contain central nervous system tissue. Additionally, to further help consumers identify foods and other products that may contain central nervous system tissue, we recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services consider whether the products it regulates, including food, cosmetics, and over-the-counter drugs, should be labeled to advise consumers that the products may contain central nervous system tissue. In order to strengthen the BSE surveillance program, we further recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture increase the number of tests from cattle that die on farms in the BSE surveillance program. We provided HHS, USDA, and Customs with a draft of this report for review and comment. HHS conveyed comments from FDA. FDA concurred with our recommendations and said the report highlighted some key areas where U.S. efforts to prevent BSE could be bolstered. FDA agreed that further improvements in compliance with the feed ban would reduce the risk of introducing and spreading BSE in the United States. However, FDA did not agree that it had misled Congress and the public in reporting on compliance. It is true, as FDA pointed out, that its June 22, 2001, transmittal of compliance information to the Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce “made an effort to identify the fact that there were reporting problems, including incomplete data, i.e., blanks.” However, we do not believe that caveat conveyed the extent to which the information could be inaccurate. In fact, noncompliance could be much higher than FDA reported, because FDA treated all firms with blanks on compliance questions as if they were in compliance, even though some of those records contained inspector comments stating that the firms were not in compliance. FDA’s transmittal to the Chairman did not disclose this. Therefore, we believe our report is correct in characterizing FDA’s data as misleading. FDA also disagreed with our conclusion that it had not placed a high priority on oversight of the feed ban. However, throughout our review, FDA repeatedly pointed out that one individual, along with that individual’s other responsibilities, designed the feed ban program, the inspection form, and the database to monitor inspections and, until January 2001, made all decisions regarding enforcement actions. FDA’s comments and our detailed responses are presented in appendix II. USDA largely agreed with our recommendations and said that it will address them as it seeks public comment on any proposed regulatory changes. USDA stated that a portion of the funding it received to bolster USDA’s homeland security efforts in the January 10, 2002, Defense Appropriations legislation will be used to increase BSE surveillance. It plans to more than double the number of animals sampled and to obtain more samples from animals that die on farms. USDA also acknowledged its support for providing consumers with information on product contents and for an open process that allows consumers to make choices. However, USDA stated that labeling and warning statements should be reserved for known hazards, which BSE is not in the United States. In light of the experiences in Japan and other countries that were thought to be BSE free, we believe that it would be prudent for USDA to consider taking some action to inform consumers when products may contain central nervous system or other tissue that could pose a risk if taken from a BSE-infected animal. This effort would allow American consumers to make more informed choices about the products they consume. USDA’s comments and our detailed responses are presented in appendix III. Customs concurred with the report and the recommendations as they related to Customs. Its letter is presented in appendix IV. USDA and FDA also made technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate. 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 Secretaries of Agriculture and HHS, the Commissioner of Customs, and other interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon request. If you have any questions about this report, please contact me or Erin Lansburgh at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. To address the effectiveness of federal efforts to prevent BSE or its spread, we focused on oversight activities in four key areas: import controls, compliance with feed rules, meat production, and disease surveillance. This included analysis of import data for calendar years 1980 through 2000 maintained by the U.S. Department of Commerce, the Treasury Department, and the International Trade Commission; analysis of FDA data on inspections for compliance with the feed ban for fiscal years 1997 through 2001; and review of USDA slaughter and meat processing procedures and BSE surveillance documents. To assess the effectiveness of compliance with the animal feed ban, we obtained and analyzed FDA’s feed inspection database to determine the accuracy, completeness, and reasonableness of key data elements, and timeliness of data entry. We interviewed FDA and feed industry officials and reviewed various FDA documents, including BSE inspection forms, assignment memorandums for conducting BSE inspections, and listings of firms that were out of compliance and firms that received FDA warning letters. In addition, we reviewed FDA contract information for evaluating the existing data in the BSE inspection database and for cleaning up the data and incorporating it into the agency’s main database. We did not independently verify the accuracy of trade data maintained by the International Trade Commission or inspection data maintained by FDA. We also visited two large ports of entry to observe procedures to screen shipments for BSE-risk products, one state to observe feed ban inspections, and another state to observe slaughter and advanced meat recovery operations. To assess the potential health risks and economic impacts of a BSE outbreak in the United States, we met or spoke with federal and state officials, as well as academic experts, industry representatives, and consumer groups, and we reviewed scientific literature. Specifically, we interviewed USDA officials responsible for oversight of imported animals and products, meat, animal disease surveillance, and agricultural statistics; FDA officials responsible for oversight of the feed ban, vaccines and blood, food regulated by FDA, dietary supplements, and imported products; officials at the U.S. Customs Service, International Trade Commission, United States Trade Representative, Department of State, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institutes of Health. In addition, we attended public meetings on BSE-related topics sponsored by FDA, HHS, and the American Meat Institute. We also discussed risks and impacts with representatives from the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, American Association of Feed Control Officials, Center for Science and the Public Interest, Public Citizen, American Feed Industry Association, American Meat Institute, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Grain and Feed Association, National Milk Producers Federation, National Renderers Association, Inc., and the Pet Food Institute. We interviewed officials at the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis and reviewed their report, Evaluation of the Potential for Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy in the United States, issued in November 2001. To compare federal efforts to those taken by other countries, we reviewed BSE risk assessments of 49 countries, including most major U.S. trading partners, prepared by the European Commission’s Scientific Steering Committee. We compared the U.S. prevention efforts with those of countries that have not reported a case of BSE and with countries in which existing prevention measures did not prevent the emergence of BSE. We also reviewed evaluations of BSE prevention programs in member states of the European Union conducted by the European Commission’s Food and Veterinary Office and the European Communities’ Court of Auditors. We conducted our study from April through December 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Health and Human Services’ letter dated January 9, 2002. 1. Our report acknowledged FDA’s ongoing review but also notes that FDA has not set a date to announce a decision on the exemptions. The report also recognizes that recent research suggests the possibility of “silent” incubation in species not previously thought susceptible to TSEs. This research argues against waiting until BSE is found to strengthen measures shown to prevent the spread of the disease. As FDA notes, other countries strengthened their feed bans due to concerns about commingling prohibited and non-prohibited proteins. Such commingling is a common area of noncompliance in the United States. 2. As FDA points out, its June 22, 2001, transmittal of compliance information to the Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce “made an effort to identify the fact that there were reporting problems, including incomplete data, i.e., blanks.” However, we do not believe that this caveat conveyed the extent to which the information could be inaccurate. In fact, noncompliance could be much higher than FDA reported, because FDA treated all firms with blanks on compliance questions as if they were in compliance. We found that over 700 inspection records for firms that handled prohibited proteins had blanks on compliance questions. In its response to the Chairman, FDA did not disclose that some of those records contained inspector comments stating that the firms were not in compliance. Nor did FDA disclose that, at the time it responded to the Chairman, it was aware of the need for “significant improvements in its data collection system for enforcing the feed ban.” As a result, we believe the data were misleading. 3. We believe that the nature and severity of the problems we found in FDA’s management, oversight, and enforcement of the feed ban point to insufficient attention by FDA management. Moreover, the fact that FDA gave all headquarters responsibility to one individual—as an add- on to that individual’s other duties—is further evidence of the relatively low priority FDA gave to its regulatory responsibility. 4. Although FDA’s field inspectors and state inspectors carried out the inspections, FDA headquarters tracked overall compliance with the feed ban and brought together data on FDA field and state compliance inspections. In meetings with FDA officials, we were repeatedly told that a single person had designed the program and the database to monitor inspections and, until January 2001, made all enforcement decisions. While administrative and other support may have been available for this person, the overall design and direction of feed ban implementation rested with this individual. Moreover, because FDA had no other information system, the database that individual developed was FDA’s only mechanism to monitor the program and track feed ban compliance. 5. Although FDA cites a number of high-level interagency policy and technical initiatives aimed at ensuring that BSE-risk products do not enter the United States, our recommendation is grounded in problems we found at the operational level. First, the high error rates in importer-provided information found by Customs are unacceptable. Second, the ever-increasing volume of imported shipments strains inspection resources at both USDA and FDA. Third, we observed or were told by federal field personnel about problems affecting USDA and FDA staff responsible for reviewing import documentation and conducting inspections of shipments. FDA staff told us that they need integrated information technologies, dedicated inspection facilities, and additional staff to effectively address their workload. 6. We do not agree that FDA has made extensive progress implementing our recommendation, based on the fact that it periodically meets with states on BSE-related issues and has increased the number of states under contracts to conduct inspections. With regard to its progress in identifying the universe of firms subject to the ban, our work shows that FDA’s efforts have not been successful. In reports, FDA states that the number of on-farm feed mills, feed blenders, and feed haulers is still unknown. FDA also asserts that the feed industry has undergone extensive consolidation, but it has not reconciled the number of firms inspected with industry or state estimates. Although FDA asserts it has incorporated into state contracts a requirement to identify firms subject to the ban, the contracts we reviewed did not include such provisions. Moreover, as recently as May 2001, we found that FDA was adding to its database information on inspections conducted in 1998 by states under contract. 7. FDA agrees on the need for a comprehensive strategy for BSE but points out that it began an enforcement strategy in 1998. However, our review shows that the strategy did not contain criteria and timeframes for specific enforcement actions against firms that fail to comply with the feed ban, as our recommendation envisions. FDA’s contention that its initial approach was to educate firms does not explain its failure to take action against firms found out of compliance on repeated inspections. Now that the feed ban has been in effect for more than 4 years, FDA points out that inspections have resulted in more than 200 recalls. However, those recalls consist of actions taken by 22 firms, one of which accounted for about 150 recalls. By FDA’s own estimates, more than 300 firms are out of compliance. 8. Regardless of variations in state laws, FDA has instructed states to provide specific information on the feed ban inspections they conduct. We believe FDA should request these states to also include information on enforcement actions taken as a result of those feed ban inspections. 9. While we agree that FDA has initiated efforts to increase the integrity and usefulness of the BSE inspection data, it has not taken the steps necessary to ensure that the inspection data are accurate and complete and recorded in a timely manner. For example, neither the steps listed in FDA’s letter nor the terms of the contracts we reviewed include periodic assessment of error rates or controls to help ensure data entered are complete and accurate. Moreover, FDA’s response does not address how the data on past BSE inspections will be merged with the Field Accomplishment Compliance Tracking System. Many of the firms have never before been subject to FDA oversight and would not have such control numbers to effectively merge the old and new data. Also, FDA has not included steps to capture timeliness of inspections, enforcement actions, and follow up, especially for past inspections. The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Agriculture’s comments received January 11, 2002. 1. While USDA states that it agrees with our recommendation, in its discussion of policy-level coordination and strategic planning among various agencies, USDA does not fully address the substance of our recommendation. Our recommendation focuses on actions to strengthen the inspection of imported products at an operational level, including identifying resources needed to do so. 2. With regard to our recommendation to consider interim action to advise consumers when products may contain central nervous system tissue, USDA acknowledged its support for providing consumers with information on product content and for an open process that allows consumers to make choices. However, USDA stated that labeling and warning statements should be reserved for known hazards. We believe that it would be prudent for USDA to consider taking some action to inform consumers when products may contain central nervous system or other tissue that could pose a risk if taken from an infected animal, especially in light of the experiences in Japan and other countries that were believed to be BSE free. This would allow consumers to make informed choices about the products they consume. Caution labels or signs, if used, could facilitate more timely removal of products that could pose a health risk if BSE were to appear. 3. USDA states that it is more than doubling the number of animals sampled in its BSE surveillance program for 2002 and that it intends to obtain more samples from animals that die on farms. USDA notes that properly equipped laboratory facilities will be needed to support the increased surveillance. Because of this uncertainty, we are keeping the recommendation. In addition to those named above, Cheryl Williams, James Dishmon, Stuart Ryba, Janice Turner, Jason Holliday, Barbara Johnson, Barbara El-Osta, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions to this report.

Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also known as mad cow disease, has been found in cattle in 23 countries. Countries with BSE have suffered large economic losses because of declines in both beef exports and domestic beef sales. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have primary responsibility for preventing the introduction of BSE-contaminated cattle, beef, and cattle-derived products into the United States. GAO found that FDA has not acted promptly to force firms to keep prohibited proteins out of cattle feed and to label animal feed that cannot be fed to cattle. FDA's data on inspections are severely flawed, and FDA is unaware of the full extent of industry compliance. If BSE was discovered in U.S. cattle, many consumers might refuse to buy domestic beef; beef exports could decline dramatically as could sales in related industries, such as hamburger chains and frozen dinner manufacturers. Furthermore, some people might develop mad cow disease if infected cattle were to enter the food supply. The United States acted as many as five years earlier than did other countries to impose controls over imports of animals and animal feed ingredients from countries that had experienced mad cow disease. Similarly, U.S. surveillance efforts to test cattle brains for mad cow disease met internationally recommended testing targets earlier than did other countries. However, the United States' feed ban is more permissive than that of other countries, allowing cattle feed to contain proteins from horses and pigs. FDA is reviewing whether these ingredients should continue to be allowed in cattle feed. Finally, as in most countries that are BSE-free, cattle brains and other central nervous system tissue can be sold as human food.

People is an American weekly magazine of celebrity and human-interest stories, published by Time Inc., a subsidiary of the Meredith Corporation.[3] With a readership of 46.6 million adults, People has the largest audience of any American magazine.[4] People had $997 million in advertising revenue in 2011, the highest advertising revenue of any American magazine.[5] In 2006, it had a circulation of 3.75 million and revenue expected to top $1.5 billion.[6] It was named "Magazine of the Year" by Advertising Age in October 2005, for excellence in editorial, circulation, and advertising.[7] People ranked #6 on Advertising Age's annual "A-list" and #3 on Adweek's "Brand Blazers" list in October 2006. The magazine runs a roughly 50/50 mix of celebrity and human-interest articles.a[›] People's editors claim to refrain from printing pure celebrity gossip, enough to lead celebrity publicists to propose exclusives to the magazine, and evidence of what one staffer calls a "publicist-friendly strategy".[6] People's website, People.com, focuses on celebrity news and human interest stories.[7] In February 2015, the website broke a new record: 72 million unique visitors.[8][9][not in citation given] People is perhaps best known for its yearly special issues naming the "World's Most Beautiful", "Best & Worst Dressed", and "Sexiest Man Alive". The magazine's headquarters are in New York, and it maintains editorial bureaus in Los Angeles and in London. For economic reasons, it closed bureaus in Austin, Miami, and Chicago in 2006.[6][7] History [ edit ] The concept for People has been attributed to Andrew Heiskell, Time Inc.'s chief executive officer at the time and the former publisher of the weekly Life magazine. The founding managing editor of People was Richard B. (Dick) Stolley, a former assistant managing editor at Life and the journalist who acquired the Zapruder tapes of the John F. Kennedy assassination for Time Inc. in 1963. People's first publisher was Richard J. (Dick) Durrell, another Time Inc. veteran.[citation needed] Stolley characterized the magazine as "getting back to the people who are causing the news and who are caught up in it, or deserve to be in it. Our focus is on people, not issues."[10] Stolley's almost religious determination to keep the magazine people-focused contributed significantly to its rapid early success. It is said that although Time Inc. pumped an estimated $40 million into the venture, the magazine only broke even 18 months after its debut in March 1974. Initially, the magazine was sold primarily on newsstands and in supermarkets. To get the magazine out each week, founding staff members regularly slept on the floor of their offices two or three nights each week and severely limited all non-essential outside engagements. The premier edition for the week ending March 4, 1974 featured actress Mia Farrow, then starring in the film The Great Gatsby, on the cover. That issue also featured stories on Gloria Vanderbilt, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the wives of U.S. Vietnam veterans who were Missing In Action.[6] The magazine was, apart from its cover, printed in black-and-white. The initial cover price was 35 cents (equivalent to $1.78 in 2018). The core of the small founding editorial team included other editors, writers, photographers and photo editors from Life magazine, which had ceased publication just 13 months earlier. This group included managing editor Stolley, senior editors Hal Wingo (father of ESPN anchor Trey Wingo), Sam Angeloff (the founding managing editor of Us magazine) and Robert Emmett Ginna (later a producer of films); writers James Watters (a theater reviewer) and Ronald B. Scott (later a biographer of Presidential candidate Mitt Romney); former Time senior editor Richard Burgheim (later the founder of Time's ill-fated cable television magazine View); Chief of Photography, a Life photographer, John Loengard, to be succeeded by John Dominus, a noteworthy Life staff photographer; and design artist Bernard Waber, author and illustrator of the Lyle The Crocodile book series for children. Many of the noteworthy Life photographers contributed to the magazine as well, including legends Alfred Eisenstaedt and Gjon Mili and rising stars Co Rentmeester, David Burnett and Bill Eppridge. Other members of the first editorial staff included editors and writers: Ross Drake, Ralph Novak, Bina Bernard, James Jerome, Sally Moore, Mary Vespa, Lee Wohlfert, Joy Wansley, Curt Davis, Clare Crawford-Mason,[11] and Jed Horne, later an editor of The Times-Picayune in New Orleans. In 1996, Time Inc. launched a Spanish-language magazine entitled People en Español. The company has said that the new publication emerged after a 1995 issue of the original magazine was distributed with two distinct covers, one featuring the murdered Tejano singer Selena and the other featuring the hit television series Friends; the Selena cover sold out while the other did not.[12] Although the original idea was that Spanish-language translations of articles from the English magazine would comprise half the content, People en Español over time came to have entirely original content. In 2002, People introduced People Stylewatch, a title focusing on celebrity style, fashion, and beauty – a newsstand extension of its Stylewatch column. Due to its success, the frequency of People Stylewatch was increased to 10 times per year in 2007.[citation needed] In spring 2017, People Stylewatch was rebranded as PeopleStyle. In late 2017, it was announced that there would no longer be a print version of PeopleStyle and it would be a digital-only publication. In Australia, the localized version of People is titled Who because of a pre-existing lad's mag published under the title People. The international edition of People has been published in Greece since 2010.[citation needed] On July 26, 2013, Outlook Group announced that it was closing down the Indian edition of People, which began publication in 2008.[13][14] In September 2016, in collaboration with Entertainment Weekly, People launched the People/Entertainment Weekly Network. The network is "a free, ad-supported online-video network carries short- and long-form programming covering celebrities, pop culture, lifestyle and human-interest stories". It was rebranded as PeopleTV in September 2017.[15] In December 2016, LaTavia Roberson engaged in a feud with People after alleging they misquoted and misrepresented her interview online.[16][17][18] Teen People [ edit ] Teen People cover, April 2006 Managing Editor Niraj Biswal Barbara O'Dair Categories Celebrity Frequency Monthly First issue February 1998 Final issue September 2006 Company Time Inc. (Time Warner) Country United States Language English ISSN 1096-2832 In 1998, the magazine introduced a version targeted at teens, called Teen People.[19] However, on July 27, 2006 the company announced that it would shut down publication of Teen People immediately. The last issue to be released was scheduled for September 2006.[20] In exchange subscribers to this magazine received Entertainment Weekly for the rest of their subscriptions. There were numerous reasons cited for the publication shutdown, including a downfall in ad pages, competition from both other teen-oriented magazines and the internet, along with a decrease in circulation numbers.[21] Teenpeople.com was merged into People.com in April 2007. People.com will "carry teen-focused stories that are branded as TeenPeople.com", Mark Golin, the editor of People.com explained, and on the decision to merge the brands he said, "We've got traffic on TeenPeople, People is a larger site, why not combine and have the teen traffic going to one place?"[22] Competition for celebrity photos [ edit ] In a July 2006 Variety article, Janice Min, Us Weekly editor-in-chief, blamed People for the increase in cost to publishers of celebrity photos: They are among the largest spenders of celebrity photos in the industry....One of the first things they ever did, that led to the jacking up of photo prices, was to pay $75,000 to buy pictures of Jennifer Lopez reading Us magazine, so Us Weekly couldn't buy them. That was the watershed moment that kicked off high photo prices in my mind. I had never seen anything like it. But they saw a competitor come along, and responded. It was a business move, and probably a smart one.[6] People reportedly paid $4.1 million for photos of newborn Shiloh Nouvel Jolie-Pitt, the child of Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt.[6] The photos set a single-day traffic record for their website, attracting 26.5 million page views.[6] Sexiest Man Alive [ edit ] The annual feature the "Sexiest Man Alive" is billed as a benchmark of male attractiveness and typically includes only famous people and celebrities. It is determined using a procedure similar to the procedure used for Time's Person of the Year. The origin of the title was a discussion on a planned story on Mel Gibson. Someone exclaimed, "Oh my God, he is the sexiest man alive!" And someone else said, "You should use that as a cover line."[23] For the first decade or so, the feature appeared at uneven intervals. Originally awarded in the wintertime, it shifted around the calendar, resulting in gaps as short as seven months and as long as a year and a half, with no selection at all during 1994 (21 years later the magazine did select Keanu Reeves to fill the 1994 gap, with runners-up including Hugh Grant and Jim Carrey). Since 1997, the dates have settled between mid-November and early December. Dates of magazine issues, winners, ages of winners at the time of selection, and pertinent comments are listed below. As of 2016 , John F. Kennedy, Jr. and Patrick Swayze are the only winners to have died. Kennedy, Adam Levine, David Beckham, and Blake Shelton are the only non-actors to have won the award. Sexiest Woman Alive [ edit ] In December 2014, People selected its first and only Sexiest Woman Alive.[39] No later People Sexiest Women of the Year were announced. Cindy Crawford alongside Richard Gere had been declared "Sexiest Couple of the Year" on October 19, 1993 as a departure from the magazine's annual "Sexiest Man of the Year" award. Year Choice Age December 25, 2014 Kate Upton[39] 22 Most Intriguing People of the Year [ edit ] At the end of each year People magazine famously selects 25 news-making individuals or couples who have received a lot of media attention over the past 12 months and showcases them in a special year-end issue, the '25 Most Intriguing People of the Year'. This series of full-page features and half-page featurettes includes world leaders and political activists, famous actors and entertainers, elite athletes, prominent business people, accomplished scientists and occasionally members of the public whose stories have made an unusual impact in news or tabloid media.[40] 100 Most Beautiful People [ edit ] People's 100 Most Beautiful People is an annual list of 100 people judged to be the most beautiful individuals in the world. Until 2006, it was the 50 Most Beautiful People. Julia Roberts holds the record for most times named, with five.[41] Michelle Pfeiffer and Jennifer Aniston have appeared twice. Number Ones of Most Beautiful People [ edit ] Notes [ edit ] ^ a: The ratio, according to Variety, is 53% to 47%. ||||| Jennifer Aniston is PEOPLE’s 2016 World’s Most Beautiful Woman! The actress is opening up about her marriage and sharing her age-defying beauty tips. Subscribe now for this exclusive special edition of PEOPLE! Jennifer Aniston may be one of the most gorgeous stars in Hollywood, but she was still humbled and “very, very flattered” when she first heard the news that she was being named the Most Beautiful Woman in the World. “I thought, ‘Oh my God,’ ” she tells PEOPLE in this week’s cover story. “There was this sort of very excited, teenage-y kind of moment.” The actress, who says she’s learned to embrace her appearance over the years, insists she feels her best when she’s healthy and strong. “It’s funny, it’s a really quick transition from not a care and now all of a sudden, we’ve got to really be mindful of what we put inside our bodies,” she adds. “And how we sleep and take care of ourselves. You can get away with a lot in your 20s.” For more of Aniston’s revealing interview, including beauty tips and secrets she’s learned over the years, pick up this week’s issue of PEOPLE on newsstands Friday Jennifer Aniston is PEOPLE's 2016 World's Most Beautiful Woman People Aniston, 47, was first motivated to start taking care of herself early on in her career after an agent told her she didn’t get a part because she was “too chubby.” “I was like, ‘What?!’ But my diet was terrible,” she says. “Milk shakes and French fries with gravy [laughs]. It was a good thing to start paying attention.” Now the actress mixes it up by exercising at least six days a week for about an hour each day and watching her diet. But that doesn’t mean she won’t indulge in her favorites. From chips and guacamole to her husband Justin Theroux‘s pasta carbonara, which they make together every couple of weeks, “I’m not as strict as I was,” she says. “It was always sort of a monitored watch. Then I thought just give yourself moderation.” Besides cooking and exercising with her husband, Aniston says just being married to Theroux brings her the greatest joy. “He makes me laugh. He’s so interesting and so interested,” she says. “He’s unbelievably talented in more areas than one and he’s just a good man.” As for her natural look, the actress gives full credit to her glam squad for teaching her “everything that I know! Whatever was happening before was just unfortunate,” says the star, adding that she now knows how to contour her cheeks and blow out her hair. “When I was in my 20s, my face was almost a complete circle. So I really needed contouring. And now I’m slowly chiseling away, wishing I had that round face back.” If she could magically try any new look and instantly go back, Aniston says she’d be game to check out a pixie cut. “If I knew I could instantly push it back. I’m very curious to see what I would look like with really short hair,” she says. “But I’ll never do it. Never. I’m a long hair girl. It’s like a security blanket.” So how does Aniston define beauty? “Inner confidence. Peace. Kindness. Honesty. A life well-lived,” she says. “Taking on challenges and not feeling shame for things that haven’t gone the way you felt they should have. And not feeling like a failure or allowing people to critique your life and make you feel like you’ve failed at something. That’s just toxic noise.” ||||| Julia Roberts is the 2017 World’s Most Beautiful Woman! Learn her secrets to staying young—and subscribe now for this special edition featuring over 50 pages of beauties — only in PEOPLE! It’s been 26 years since Julia Roberts was first on the cover of PEOPLE’s World’s Most Beautiful issue, and she’s still our favorite pretty woman. Get push notifications with news, features and more. The stunning star is, for a record fifth time, the Most Beautiful Woman in the World – though she can hardly believe it. “I am very flattered,” she tells PEOPLE’s editor-in-chief Jess Cagle in this week’s cover story. In fact, Roberts is now way ahead of pal George Clooney, who has been PEOPLE’s Sexiest Man Alive twice. Jokes Roberts of the feat, “I’m going to mention that in my Christmas card to the Clooneys this year.” Roberts, 49, opens up about her happy 14-year marriage to cinematographer Danny Moder, her life with twins Hazel and Phinnaeus, 12, and Henry, 9, and the secrets of her ageless beauty in her interview with Cagle and PEOPLE’s style and beauty director, Andrea Lavinthal. She thinks the best is yet to come: “I think I’m currently peaking.” Alexi Lubomirski for Lancôme To see the full interview, watch People Cover Story: World’s Most Beautiful — Julia Roberts, streaming now on the People/Entertainment Weekly Network. Go to People.com/PEN, or download the PEN app on your favorite device. Roberts was just 23 when she first appeared on the cover of the World’s Most Beautiful issue in 1991. The year before, she had skyrocketed to instant fame when she starred in the smash romantic comedy Pretty Woman. Ron Batzdorff/Touchstone Pictures RELATED VIDEO: World’s Most Beautiful: PEOPLE Editor Catherine Kast on Julia Roberts’ Diet, Family & More! But behind the scenes, Roberts reveals, she had no idea how much her life had changed. “People say, ‘Oh, when Pretty Woman came out it must have really changed your life,’ and it’s kind of become this joke, but the truth is I was out of town when Pretty Woman came out,” she says in the cover story. “I was in another movie in this tiny little town that was showing Star Wars in its first run. I remember reading … ‘Pretty Woman came out this weekend and made this much money’ and I thought, ‘Is that a lot of money? Is that good? Is that great?’ I didn’t really know.” Alex J. Berliner/abimages/AP She reflects on how she found confidence after her “awkward” early years — and how she found her own fairy-tale ending. “I mean every day my husband walks in the door it’s like a recurring dream. I’m like, ‘Ah, he’s back!’ “ ||||| Mirror Mirror People magazine’s “most beautiful” women list isn’t about looks, but calibrates a more complex algorithm of pop-cultural currency. The curators of the “World's Most Beautiful Women” at People magazine have surely spent months mulling over their annual issue, which hit newsstands Wednesday. They have surely devoted hundreds of hours to debate contenders’ merits and the definition of beauty in heated editorial meetings. Perhaps they employed some sort of “beauty” algorithm to whittle down actresses and rate each one numerically, weighing “money given to charities” against “number of times photographed by paparazzi.” But at the end of the day, there’s only one thing that matters: whose face will attract the most eyes--be they approving or withering—in supermarket checkout lines? This year, People placed their bets on “Real, Radiant Sandra Bullock!” whose defiant smile on the cover of the tabloid pairs nicely with a defiant strand of hair hovering above her right eyebrow. The 50-year-old actress doesn’t give a damn about out-of-place hair! She looks too good to concern herself with matters so trivial. Plus, she’s a proud single mother, a Hollywood star aging gracefully five years after her big Oscar win, and embracing her role as “the world’s first female supervillain” in the upcoming animated feature, Minions. At 50, she’s the oldest “World’s Most Beautiful Woman” ever. Bullock is a strategic choice for People, who know readers don’t associate her with classic Hollywood beauty and femininity. Bullock charmed you despite yourself as the tough girl with the cutesie bob in Speed. She annoyed you in While You Were Sleeping, but won your heart again with her tough-girl slapstick shtick in Miss Congeniality. The actress is more poised in real life, but she’s still the ballsy guys’ girl—never catty or petty—who is bored by celebrity drivel. She’s modest, cool, and insouciant. Or at least this is how People is selling her. “The people I find most beautiful are the ones who aren’t trying,” Bullock told People. “Real beauty is quiet. Especially in this town, it’s just so hard not to say, ‘Oh, I need to look like that.’” Superficial beauty is ephemeral; real beauty is to “be a good person, be a good mom, do a good job with the lunch, let someone cut in front of you who looks like they’re in a bigger hurry.” Naturally, when Bullock learned People had bestowed her with the “most beautiful” honorific, she thought it was “ridiculous” and “told no one.” It’s a predictable response from the Hollywood star, desperate to sound modest and prove her talent and success are unrelated to her good looks. But it sounds more genuine coming from Bullock, who has always seemed “laissez-faire” about her public image next to other big-name actresses. Perhaps the other reason Bullock “told no one” is because, like every other sensible person, she recognizes that People’s annual stock of the “World’s Most Beautiful” women is more tired and ridiculous every year. It’s a list of actresses who fit a certain script. 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 There are 192 “breathtaking beauties” in this year’s issue, but Broadway’s Gigi star Vanessa Hudgens, Orange is the New Black’s Laverne Cox, pop singer Meghan Trainor (who, People writes, is a “pop force to be reckoned with” despite her “initial insecurities about not looking ‘like Rihanna’”) are all beautiful—yes—but also more than that airless word. Many of these women are cultural lightning rods; they’re the celebrities we can’t stop talking about because they’re shattering gender and beauty conventions. They are talking points. It’s a major departure from the “Most Beautiful” archives. When People first launched the issue 25 years ago, it was puffed-up eye candy: actresses and models who were famous because they were beautiful. For less than a dollar, you could pore over pictures of the most beautiful people—and get a superficial glimpse of their world from the tabloid’s interviews. Now the “beauty” criteria is more about cultural cachet than aesthetic beauty. In some ways this is a good thing: People’s definition of beauty, tailored to their readers’ views, is much less narrow than it used to be. But it’s the script that bugs me, the imagined algorithms, the token “beautiful” star who defies beauty conventions. The message is clear: They’re not objectifying women, because that’s no longer socially acceptable. They’re celebrating their achievements! They’re championing diversity! But they can’t say that because—why—too worthy? Too dull? Sell it as a beauty parade, but really this is a feminist-slanted pageant on the sly? Implicitly, People wants us to see it is doing all women a service by selecting beautiful women who are more than just a bunch of pretty faces—but, hmm, still pretty enough to sell magazines. People’s annual “Sexiest Man Alive” issue is equally absurd, but at least it’s straightforward when it comes to its looks-based objectification, and not laboring the “beautiful on the inside and out” point. In its parade of firm pecs and hillock-shaped biceps, it says plainly: Here’s our pick of Hollywood’s sexiest male stars for you to fantasize about. If People’s “Most Beautiful” cover star isn’t a painfully obvious choice (Beyoncé in 2012, for example), the magazine tends to go with a wild card, like Gwyneth Paltrow in 2013. Eight days before that issue came out, Paltrow had been named Hollywood’s most hated celebrity by Star magazine. People made a canny move here, knowing that polarizing beauties often sell more than popular ones, especially when selling to a tabloid demographic. Giving the prize to Sandra Bullock this year is equally strategic. For all the readers who will marvel at how good she looks at 50, there are just as many who will say she’s over-the-hill. And if there’s anything tabloid readers enjoy more than gawking at celebrity beauty, it’s voyeuristically observing their failures and flaws, from Britney Spears’s head-shaving meltdown to a glimpse of mottled flesh on Gwynnie’s thighs. Not that you’ll see any of this in People this week. It’s a brief moment of sexy, shiny, happy respite for Hollywood stars, whose physical beauty will be relentlessly scrutinized the rest of the year. Lately, People’s “Most Beautiful” issue has become an annual attempt by the magazine to redeem themselves from accusations of shallowness, to prove they believe beauty is more than skin deep. ||||| share tweet pin email Julia Roberts has been named People's Most Beautiful woman of 2017. The 49-year-old Oscar winner is gracing the cover of the publication's annual issue for a record fifth time. TODAY revealed the news exclusively Wednesday morning. People Inside the magazine, the "Pretty Woman" star reveals that happiness, humor and healthy living have helped her maintain her girl-next-door good looks. The Georgia-born beauty, who won an Oscar for her leading role in 2000's "Erin Brockovich," has three kids — twins, Phinnaeus and Hazel, 12, and son Henry, 9 — with her hubby of 14 years, cinematographer Danny Moder, 48. Closed Captioning ON OFF apply | reset x Text Display Background Enhancements font Times New Roman Arial Comic Sans T T T T size color Julia Roberts named People magazine's Most Beautiful (again) Play Video - 0:39 Julia Roberts named People magazine's Most Beautiful (again) Play Video - 0:39 We apologize, this video has expired. A perfect day, said Roberts, is "just to be with my family (with) everybody feeling happy and running around and playing. Just sharing time together." The star, who first landed on People's Most Beautiful in 1991 at age 23, said her kids keep her laughing. People Julia Roberts on the cover of People in 1991 "They all have a very keen sense of humor," she said. "They all have a sort of different style of humor, but I do think they are all pretty funny, and I really hope they get that from me because that's what I tell everybody." RELATED: Julia Roberts delivers vaccines for children in Kenya Roberts, who lost her mom, Betty, in 2015, revealed that she looks forward to growing "gracefully-ish old" and one day being a grandmother herself: "That's what the winter of life is supposed to be about." Closed Captioning ON OFF apply | reset x Text Display Background Enhancements font Times New Roman Arial Comic Sans T T T T size color share link Julia Roberts named People's Most Beautiful Woman for 5th time: See her past covers! Play Video - 0:46 Julia Roberts named People's Most Beautiful Woman for 5th time: See her past covers! Play Video - 0:46 The actress said she never looks back wistfully at her career, feeling as if she's already peaked: "I think I'm currently peaking," she said. "I'm a slow rise. I'm like a slow Thanksgiving dinner roll." People's Most Beautiful issue hits newsstands on Friday. ||||| Apr 19, 2017 - Roberts was just 23 years old when she first appeared on the cover of the World's Most Beautiful issue in 1991. "Was I old enough to be voted ...

"Pretty Woman" has once more received a description upgrade. Julia Roberts is the "World's Most Beautiful Woman," according to People, the star's fifth turn at the honor since she first appeared on the "Most Beautiful" cover in 1991 at the age of 23. The 49-year-old mom of three tells the magazine, "I am very flattered," adding that she believes she's "currently peaking." "I'm a slow rise … like a slow Thanksgiving dinner roll," she says, per Today. Roberts' repeat ascension to the top of the "Most Beautiful" list continues the recent trend of the magazine selecting women from the 45-and-over set as its honorees: Last year's cover star was Jennifer Aniston at the age of 47 (her second time on the cover), and in 2015, Sandra Bullock took the top spot at the age of 50—what the Daily Beast mused at the time was a "strategic" move on People's part. As for Roberts, perhaps the secret to what People calls her "ageless beauty" can be found in the love she has for husband Danny Moder, whom she married in 2002. "Every day [he] walks in the door it's like a recurring dream," she says. "I'm like, 'Ah, he's back!'" (Kiefer Sutherland recently spoke about his long-ago romance with Roberts.)

In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) to address the problem of "patient dumping" in hospital emergency departments. Patient dumping refers to instances in which a hospital turns away indigent or uninsured persons seeking treatment so that the hospital will not have to absorb the cost of treating them. Although attempts to facilitate indigent access to emergency health care already existed in state and federal law, legal frameworks prior to EMTALA were plagued with poor enforcement mechanisms and vague standards of conduct. Amid graphic media reports of hospitals sending away critically ill patients without proper stabilization treatment and delivery rooms unwilling to accept indigent or uninsured women in labor, Congress passed EMTALA as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. EMTALA's statutory scheme has traditionally been deconstructed into two principal categories: (1) provisions that ensure an appropriate medical screening, and (2) provisions that require stabilization before transfer or discharge. EMTALA only requires stabilization of whatever emergency conditions a hospital detects, and does not provide a right to indefinite care for anyone who comes to an emergency room. EMTALA's requirements may be suspended by the Secretary of Health and Human Services during national emergencies, such as the recent landfall of Hurricane Ike in Texas. Hospitals and physicians that fail to comply with these requirements may be fined $50,000 and/or excluded from participation in Medicare, and hospitals may also be held civilly liable to persons who suffer personal injury. Only hospitals that (1) participate in Medicare and (2) maintain an emergency department are required to screen patients under EMTALA. Hospitals that do not have a "dedicated emergency department" are not subject to the screening requirement of EMTALA. Similarly, emergency care providers that are unaffiliated with a hospital need not comply with EMTALA, even where those providers are the only medical care facilities reasonably accessible. For example, in Rodriguez v. American Int'l Ins. Co. of Puerto Rico , the First Circuit declined to extend EMTALA protections to a 24-hour emergency room clinic in rural Puerto Rico because the clinic was not associated with a hospital. The Federal District Court for the District of Puerto Rico had initially held that, because the clinic was the primary provider of 24-hour emergency health care in its area, applying EMTALA to the clinic best furthered the statutory goal of universal access to emergency medical care. However, the First Circuit reversed, holding that any considerations of the goals of Congress were inappropriate where the text of the statute was clear. The screening requirement is triggered when an individual "comes to the emergency department" of a hospital and requests to be treated. Under HHS regulations, an individual may be deemed to have come to the emergency department in certain circumstances, even though the individual is not physically present in the emergency department or elsewhere on the hospital campus. For example, a patient en-route to a hospital in an ambulance or air transport owned by that hospital has "come to the emergency department" of that hospital and may not be refused a screening exam under EMTALA. These regulations also state that incoming patients in ambulances that are not owned by the receiving hospital have not "come to the emergency department." The regulations further allow the hospital to redirect the non-owned ambulance if the hospital is in "diversionary status." However, at least one Federal Court of Appeal has rejected this interpretation of the statute and has held that EMTALA could be triggered by an incoming ambulance that was not owned by the receiving hospital. In Morales v. Sociedad Espanola , the hospital had argued that HHS regulations clearly state that patients in non-owned ambulances have not yet "come to the emergency department," and therefore EMTALA did not apply. However, according to the First Circuit's reading of the pertinent regulations, a hospital is only permitted to take the affirmative action of refusing a non-owned ambulances if it is actually in "diversionary status." The court argued that this reading gives effect to every word in the regulation and also best effectuates EMTALA's statutory goal of preventing patient dumping. Regardless of whether the ambulance is owned by a hospital or not, should an ambulance ignore a redirection request, EMTALA is triggered if the patient physically arrives on the hospital's property. Although hospitals with dedicated emergency departments are required to perform screening exams, it is not necessarily a violation of EMTALA if a screening exam falls short of either a local or national medical malpractice standard. The language of the statute requires only "an appropriate medical screening exam." The majority of the federal circuits have held that, because the chief evil sought to be prevented was the lack of access for uninsured patients, an "appropriate" exam is one comparable to what a paying patient would receive under similar circumstances. However, the Sixth Circuit has construed the statute more narrowly, holding that there is no violation of EMTALA without the additional allegation of an "improper motive" that led to a substandard screening exam. Like the screening requirement, the stabilization requirement applies to all Medicare participating hospitals with a dedicated emergency department. However, in some cases the stabilization requirement may also apply to a Medicare participating hospital even if it does not have an emergency department. For example, if treatment of an individual's medical condition requires a particular hospital's unique equipment or expertise, federal regulations compel that hospital to accept a transfer of that patient from any nearby U.S. hospital. The stabilization requirement is triggered when a hospital discovers that an individual has an emergency medical condition. Actual knowledge of an emergency medical condition is required. Therefore, if a hospital fails to accurately detect an individual's emergency condition and discharges that individual without stabilizing the medical condition, the hospital may not have violated EMTALA's stabilization provisions. However, the hospital may still be civilly liable to the individual based upon state medical malpractice claims if the failure to detect an emergency condition was due to negligence during the screening exam. Except where medically necessary, hospitals must ensure that an individual is stabilized before discharge or transfer. Federal regulations define an individual as stabilized as either (1) when there is a reasonable assurance that no material deterioration would result from that individual's transfer or discharge from the hospital or, (2) in the case of women in labor, after delivery of the child and placenta. Unlike the screening requirement, the language of the stabilization requirement does not qualify the care to be given as "appropriate." Based on this textual distinction, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that no "improper motive" need be alleged to show a violation of EMTALA's stabilization provisions. When an emergency medical condition is detected, a hospital may decide to admit the individual as an inpatient for further treatment. Whether the stabilization requirement continues to apply to patients after they have been admitted is a disputed issue. Because the statute only defines "stabilization" in the context of transfers, the Fourth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits have held that a hospital has no stabilization duties that are enforceable under EMTALA once an individual has been admitted. However, the Sixth Circuit had held otherwise in Thornton v. Southwest Detroit Hosp ital . In that case, a stroke victim alleged she was discharged from the ICU without being stabilized, in violation of EMTALA, after 21 days of inpatient care. The Sixth Circuit held that EMTALA still required stabilization before discharge, despite her inpatient status. Despite this split in circuit authority, the Supreme Court declined to rule on this issue in Roberts v. Galen , although it had an opportunity to do so. During oral arguments for that case, the office of the Solicitor General, arguing as amicus curiae, informed the Court that the Department of Health and Human Services intended to begin rule-making procedures to provide guidance on this question. In 2002, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a notice of a proposed rule extending EMTALA protections to inpatients. Many comments noted the Bryant v. Adventist decision holding otherwise, and in 2003, CMS reversed its position, stating that if, after performing a screening exam, a hospital admits an individual for treatment of an emergency medical condition, then the hospital has satisfied its duties under EMTALA. In August of 2008, HHS further clarified its position by stating that EMTALA does not apply to an individual who has been screened and admitted at one hospital but requires a transfer to a second hospital that has specialized facilities. As described above, where a patient has not yet been admitted, nearby specialized hospitals are generally required to accept transfers of the patient from the original hospital. However, the new regulations clearly state that once the individual has been admitted as an inpatient in one hospital, other specialized hospitals do not continue to have a duty to accept a transfer under EMTALA. Despite the promulgation of these rules, the Sixth Circuit has continued to hold that the mere admission of an individual, without further treatment, does not satisfy EMTALA. In Moses v. Providence Hospital , the court found CMS's regulations to be contrary to the plain language of the statute. Therefore, the regulations were not entitled to deference. In particular, the court relied upon language in EMTALA which prohibits hospitals from releasing patients with emergency medical conditions without providing treatment to stabilize the condition. According to the court, the CMS regulations would permit hospitals to avoid EMTALA liability by simply admitting and immediately discharging patients, without providing any treatment. The court found such a construction to be unreasonable and contrary to the language of the statute. However, one could argue that by admitting an individual, a hospital is subject to potential medical malpractice liability under state law. Therefore, while the CMS regulations may provide a means of avoiding EMTALA liability by admitting and discharging individuals, compliance with CMS's interpretation would not necessarily immunize hospitals from applicable state law claims. Insofar as the intent of EMTALA was to prevent situations in which hospitals could "dump" patients without incurring any liability, providing an incentive for hospitals to admit emergency room patients may be consistent with that goal. Once a patient is admitted, it could be argued that EMTALA liability is unnecessary as state medical malpractice law could provide an incentive for the hospital to ensure the provision of necessary stabilizing treatment. The defendant hospital in Moses petitioned the Supreme Court for review, but the Court declined to hear the case. This would appear to indicate that a split of circuit authority remains with respect to EMTALA's application to admitted persons. However, it should be noted that the Sixth Circuit's decision in Moses also relied on the fact that the underlying hospital visit occurred in 2002 before CMS had promulgated its regulations on inpatient status. Additionally, the Court noted that CMS's regulations did not expressly indicate an intent to apply retroactively. Furthermore, presuming retroactive application would have adversely affected the patient's expectations at the time care was sought, based on the Sixth Circuit's earlier decision in Thornton. Because of these considerations, the Sixth Circuit held, in the alternative, that even if CMS's interpretation of the statute was entitled to deference in prospective cases, it should not be given retroactive effect to the specific facts before it. However, despite these alternative grounds, at least one federal district court in the Sixth Circuit has cited Moses for the proposition that "EMTALA [currently] imposes an obligation on a hospital beyond simply admitting a patient with an emergency medical condition to an inpatient care unit." In December of 2010, CMS issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking and solicited comments regarding whether it should revisit its regulations which provide that a hospital's EMTALA obligations end once a patient has been admitted. In its request for comment, CMS specifically requested "real world examples" and comments that described situations where an admitted emergency room patient was subsequently transferred despite the admitting hospital's ability to treat the patient's condition. The stabilization requirement may preempt certain state laws authorizing physicians to decline administering treatment where deemed inappropriate based upon their medical judgment. In In re Baby K , a hospital sought a declaratory judgment that they were permitted to refuse to treat an anencephalic infant in respiratory distress. The hospital argued that the prevailing standard of care for anencephalic infants was to provide warmth and nutrition without mechanical respiration, and that Virginia state law authorized physicians to refuse to provide care they believed would be inappropriate. The Fourth Circuit disagreed and held that the requirement of stabilization prior to transfer or discharge was compulsory once an emergency medical condition had been identified by hospital personnel, even where the treating physician believed stabilization treatment would have been futile. Furthermore, the court held that EMTALA preempted the Virginia statute authorizing the physician to refuse to provide treatment he reasonably believed to be inappropriate. All transfers must be conducted with qualified personnel and equipment. An individual may not be transferred unless the receiving hospital consents to receive the individual. The receiving hospital must have the capacity and expertise to treat the transferred individual, and all medical records must be sent to the receiving hospital. It is the transferring hospital's obligation to ensure that the transfer has been performed as described above and the transferring hospital remains liable under EMTALA until an appropriate transfer is completed. It is not a violation of EMTALA to transfer an individual who has not been stabilized when it is medically necessary to do so. In such situations, a qualified medical person, as defined by the hospital's own rules and regulations, must certify that the benefits of transfer to a different facility outweigh the risks involved. EMTALA provides a civil remedy to "any individual who suffers personal harm as a direct result of a participating hospital's violation." In 2009, the Sixth Circuit held that this language provided a civil remedy to third parties that were injured as a direct result of a violation of either the screening or stabilization requirements. In the case before the court, the hospital was alleged to have improperly discharged an emergency room patient who was psychiatrically unstable. Ten days after his discharge the patient murdered his wife. The wife's estate subsequently brought suit against the hospital alleging that the hospital's failure to stabilize before discharge was a direct cause of her death. The defendants argued that the patient's wife lacked standing under EMTALA because it only permitted civil claims by persons that were personally denied treatment in violation of the statute. In support of this argument, the defendants noted that, during consideration of EMTALA, the House Judiciary Committee had issued a report stating [The civil suit provision of EMTALA] authorizes only two types of actions for damages. The first of these could be brought by the individual patient who suffers harm as a direct result of [a] hospital's failure to appropriately screen, stabilize, or properly transfer that patient. The second type of action could be brought by a medical facility which received an improperly transferred emergency patient. Because third parties were not mentioned in the legislative history, the defendants argued that this suit should not be permitted. The Sixth Circuit disagreed, noting that where a House committee's explanation of the meaning of a statute seems to differ from the statute's actual wording, this Court should not rely on that committee's statement as the exclusive explanation for the meaning of the statute.... We recognize that our interpretation of the civil enforcement provision may have consequences for hospitals that Congress may or may not have considered or intended. However, our duty is only to read the statute as it is written. In the court's view, the statutory text afforded a civil remedy to " any individual who suffers personal harm as a direct result" of the hospital's actions, and the most logical reading of this text permits suits to be brought by harmed third parties.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) ensures universal access to emergency medical care at all Medicare participating hospitals with emergency departments. Under EMTALA, any person who seeks emergency medical care at a covered facility, regardless of ability to pay, immigration status, or any other characteristic, is guaranteed an appropriate screening exam and stabilization treatment before transfer or discharge. Failure to abide by these requirements can subject hospitals or physicians to civil monetary sanctions or exclusion from Medicare. Hospitals, but not physicians, may also be sued by private individuals who suffer personal injuries as a result of a violation of EMTALA. A dispute over the interpretation of the statute has recently arisen in the context of the application of EMTALA to individuals who come to a hospital emergency room and are subsequently admitted to the hospital as inpatients. Regulations promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have taken the position that a hospital's EMTALA obligations end once an individual is admitted as an inpatient. However, in Moses v. Providence Hospital, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that, despite these regulations, transferring or discharging an inpatient without stabilizing an emergency medical condition could still constitute a violation of EMTALA. Consequently, a hospital's obligations to inpatients under EMTALA may be modulated by the Moses decision if the hospital happens to be located in the Sixth Circuit's jurisdiction (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee). In December of 2010, CMS solicited comments on whether CMS's inpatient regulations should be revisited. The solicited comments may provide specific examples of individuals' treatment after being admitted from the emergency room, which may be of interest to both agency officials and legislators.

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Paul Wood in Homs says there is "nowhere to hide" for the city's people Heavy artillery fire has been rocking Homs, as Syrian troops step up an assault on the restive city. A BBC correspondent there describes almost constant blasts, in the fiercest attack in the 11-month uprising. US President Barack Obama said it was important to resolve the conflict without outside military intervention. Meanwhile, Russia and China defended their veto of a UN draft resolution criticising Syria - a move that angered opponents of President Bashar al-Assad. Later the US State Department said it had closed its embassy in Damascus and pulled out all remaining staff because of security concerns. Washington had warned in January that it would close the embassy if the government did not step up security. 'Not safe at all' Homs, one of the main centres of resistance to Mr Assad's rule, has been under attack from government forces for several days. Shelling resumed shortly after daybreak on Monday, says BBC's Paul Wood who has managed to get into the city, and hundreds of shells and mortars have been fired throughout the day. Analysis Syrian state television denied that there had been any bombardment. It said residents were setting fire to piles of rubbish on the roofs of their homes to trick the world into thinking that there was an attack. There is no doubt, however, from what we have seen and heard, that hundreds of shells and mortars have been fired at this place during the day. As I write this, the windows of the house we are in are still reverberating from the impact of a shell, probably in the next street. It is true that people have been setting fire to rubbish in the streets. They believe it will confuse the guidance systems of rockets apparently being fired at them. They are probably mistaken. People in this part of Homs say these attacks are the worst they have known since the beginning of the uprising, almost a year ago. The bombing has been going on for several days now. 'They are still picking up the bodies' Homs: 'Who will help us now?' Avoiding Syria's secret police Eyewitness Danny Abdul Dayem told the BBC the army was using rockets for the first time, with more than 300 falling on his locality since dawn. "It's not safe at all, a rocket could land in this house right now," he said Some rebels fighters have been firing automatic weapons in return, in what our correspondent calls a futile gesture. The rebels claim that the shelling has hit a field hospital in the Baba Amr district, causing casualties. However, our correspondent says this is impossible to verify. The facility is treating dozens of people wounded in previous assaults on Homs. Mr Dayem said only one field hospital with four doctors was still operating in the city, and it was virtually impossible to get additional medication without being shot. Another anti-government campaigner told the BBC the government was also using helicopters and tanks in the assault. Activists say at least 40 people were killed on Monday. Syrian state TV said "terrorist gangs" had blown up buildings in Homs. The state-run Sana news agency reported that an oil pipeline near the city had been hit by an explosion on Monday. It also blamed "terrorists". Both Syrian media and activists are also reporting clashes in the northern city of Idlib and the town of Zabadani, north-west of Damascus. The government says it is fighting foreign-backed armed groups. Thousands of former army soldiers have defected to the rebel side, forming the Free Syrian Army. The BBC's Jim Muir in neighbouring Lebanon says the conflict is beginning to look increasingly like a civil war with dangerous sectarian overtones. The uprising is largely rooted in poorer sections of the Sunni community, our correspondent says, while the government draws its support mostly from Alawites, Christians and other minorities fearful of an Islamist takeover. The Assad regime is feeling the noose tightening around them US President Barack Obama Russia keeps Syria options open 'Inexcusable' The Syrian opposition says Saturday's veto by China and Russia of a UN draft resolution condemning the crackdown will encourage the government to act without restraint. President Obama vowed to apply sanctions and put pressure on Mr Assad. "I think it is very important for us to try to resolve this without recourse to outside military intervention. And I think that's possible," he said in an interview for the NBC network's Today programme broadcast on Monday. He added that a negotiated solution was possible and said the US was "relentless" in demanding that Mr Assad leave power. "The Assad regime is feeling the noose tightening around them," he said. "We're going to just continue to put more and more pressure until hopefully we see a transition." UK Foreign Secretary William Hague described the Russian and Chinese vetoes as "a grave error of judgement". Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Danny Abdul Dayem in Homs: "Pieces of bodies, children, women" French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he would discuss the situation in Syria with his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev later on Monday. "France and Germany will not abandon the Syrian people," Mr Sarkozy said after a meeting in Paris with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. "We will not accept that the international community remains blocked." However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the resolution, drafted by Arab and European countries, would have meant taking sides in a civil war. Speaking in Bahrain on Monday, he said encouraging "armed extremist groups" would only cause more casualties, and said Moscow supported peaceful dialogue in Syria. Mr Lavrov is due to travel to Damascus on Tuesday for talks with President Assad. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Homs resident: "I watched a three-year-old girl dying" The Chinese government also defended its veto. It said the draft resolution would only have complicated matters, and said Beijing sought to "avoid the scourge of armed conflict". Human rights groups and activists say more than 7,000 people have been killed by Syrian security forces since the uprising began last March. The UN stopped estimating the death toll in Syria after it passed 5,400 in January, saying it was too difficult to confirm. President Assad's government says at least 2,000 members of the security forces have been killed fighting "armed gangs and terrorists". ||||| BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syrian forces bombarded Homs on Monday, killing 50 people in a sustained assault on several districts of the city which has become a centre of armed opposition to President Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian National Council opposition group said. Western countries seeking Assad's downfall scrambled to find a new diplomatic strategy after the defeat of a U.N. Security Council resolution backing an Arab League call for Assad to give up power and start a political transition. The United States shut its embassy in Damascus and said all staff had left the country due to worsening security. Britain said it withdrew its ambassador from Syria, and would seek further European Union sanctions against Syria. Russia fought back against blistering criticism from the West for vetoing the resolution on Saturday. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who is due in Damascus on Tuesday, said condemnations of Moscow's veto had verged on "hysteria." U.S. President Barack Obama said that, however hard Western countries are prepared to lean on Assad diplomatically, they still had no intention of using force to topple him, as they did against Muammar Gaddafi in Libya last year. "I think it is very important for us to try to resolve this without recourse to outside military intervention. And I think that's possible," he told NBC's Today show. The opposition Syrian National Council's (SNC) Catherine al-Talli told Reuters shelling of Homs early on Monday killed 50. Assad's opponents say his tanks and artillery killed more than 200 people in the city on Friday night in the bloodiest incident of the 11-month-old uprising against his rule. That attack, branded a "massacre" by France and "unspeakable" by Obama, set the stage for intense efforts over the weekend to lobby Moscow not to block the U.N. Security Council resolution. But Russia argued the resolution was one-sided and would have amounted to taking the side of Assad's opponents in a civil war. China also vetoed the measure, by most accounts following Russia's lead. "It is sad that the co-authors decided to hastily put the resolution to a vote, even though we appealed to them with a request to give it a few more days" until after his own planned trip to Damascus, Lavrov said. "Some of the voices heard in the West with evaluations of the results of the vote in the U.N. Security Council on the Syria resolution sound, I would say, improper, somewhere on the verge of hysteria," Lavrov told reporters after meeting the foreign minister of Bahrain, one of the Arab states that has sought a tougher stance against Assad. RUSSIAN ROLE Lavrov has said Russia favors a peace dialogue in Syria that is free of outside interference and preconditions. He repeated the message in a phone conversation with Arab League chief Nabil Elaraby, the Russian Foreign Ministry said. Elaraby, asked in an interview with Reuters whether Russian mediation could end the crisis, said: "They believe so." The collapse of an Arab League monitoring mission in Syria as violence surged set the stage for the U.N. standoff. The opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said it had the names of 43 people killed in Monday's bombardment of Homs. Television footage showed smoke rising from buildings, with explosions echoing in the background. "This is the most violent bombardment in recent days," said one activist in Syria who was in touch with Homs residents. Another activist said government troops were using multiple rocket launchers in the attack. Damascus denies firing on houses and says images of dead bodies on the Internet have been staged. State media said on Monday "armed terrorist groups" were firing mortars in the city, setting fire to tires and blowing up empty buildings to give the impression that Homs was under fire from Assad's forces. State television quoted an interior ministry official as saying six security personnel died in fighting that killed tens of "terrorists," and showed brief interviews with Syrians urging the government to strike with a "fist of iron" in Homs. State news agency SANA described attacks in the city by "terrorists" who it said killed a textile factory worker. It said they also killed three officers and abducted several soldiers in Jabal al-Zawiya in the northern Idlib province. Reports from activists and authorities are hard to verify because Syria restricts access for independent media. IRON FIST Activists said there had been explosions in the Khalidiya, Baba Amro, Bayada and Bab Dreib neighborhoods of Homs. "They want to drive the Free Syrian Army out," said Baba Amro resident Hussein Nader by telephone, referring to the force of army deserters and rebels who have held parts of Homs for months. "Rockets are falling seconds apart on the same target." Another resident, Omar Shakir, said activists had information the shelling would continue until Thursday, when troops were expected to move into Homs. "We have no one but God - everybody abandoned us," he said. Activists said a blast hit an oil pipeline feeding a main refinery in Homs, the second attack in a week. Separately, three people died when the opposition-held town of Zabadani, near the Lebanese border, came under fire on Monday. Syrian army defectors announced they were organizing a new "Higher Revolutionary Council" to supersede the Free Syrian Army (FSA) as the main armed force battling Assad's rule. The new body would be commanded by General Ahmed al-Sheikh, the highest-ranking officer to defect to Turkey from government forces. Some observers said the latest offensive by Assad's forces may have been planned for some time, noting a speech last month when he vowed to strike "terrorists" with an iron fist. "The regime 10 days ago took a decision to confront the opposition in a different manner," said Ayham Kamel, of the Eurasia Group risk consultancy. "The tactics before were targeted. Now they are set on more direct confrontation with the FSA and opposition activists." "KICK IN THE ASS" The Russian and Chinese veto of the U.N. resolution was condemned in unusually harsh language by Europe and the United States, who said Moscow and Beijing would bear responsibility for future bloodshed. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the veto a "travesty" while French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet on Monday said: "There are political cultures which deserve a kick in the ass ... To accept that a dictator can operate freely is disgraceful for governments that accept it." The Syrian National Council said the Russian and Chinese vetoes of the resolution had given Assad a "license to kill." Syria is a long-standing ally of Moscow, one of the few in the region, and a buyer of its arms exports. Russia clearly still hopes to play an important diplomatic role with Assad, and says it wants to encourage him to adopt reforms. Fawaz Tello, a senior member of the opposition SNC called the Russian position "shameful" and Moscow's talk of reform hypocritical, telling Reuters: "The Russians know that such a thuggish secret police regime cannot be reformed." The veto bore the stamp of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who intends to return in a March election to the presidency he held from 2000-2008, when he was known for firmly opposing what he saw as efforts by the West to extend its influence at Russia's expense. China's state-run media said Western intervention in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq showed the error of forced regime change. "Currently, the situation in Syria is extremely complex. Simplistically supporting one side and suppressing the other might seem a helpful way of turning things around, but in fact it would be sowing fresh seeds of disaster," the People's Daily said. Clinton said on Sunday the United States would work with other nations to try to tighten sanctions against Assad's government and deny it arms in the absence of a U.N. resolution. That will be hard without a Security Council resolution and Syria is far less dependent on oil exports than other states in the region, making it less vulnerable to an embargo. (Additional reporting by Khaled Yacoub Oweis in Amman, Joseph Logan and Mariam Karouny in Beirut, Nastassia Astrasheuskaya and Alissa de Carbonnel in Moscow, Chris Buckley in Beijing, Arshad Mohammad in Sofia, Annika Breidhardt in Berlin, Mirna Sleiman in Dubai and Leigh Thomas in Paris; Editing by Jon Boyle)

Syrian troops resumed their shelling of Homs this morning, with the BBC reporting near-constant explosions in the restive city. Some rebels are reportedly returning fire (though a BBC correspondent describes their efforts as a "futile gesture"), and Reuters reports that 50 people have been killed today. According to the rebels, a field hospital where dozens are being treated is a target of today's attack, which the BBC calls one of the worst assaults on Homs of the uprising. And protesters fear Russia and China's veto of a UN draft resolution calling for Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down will embolden the government to act as it pleases, resulting in even more violence. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov today defended his country's actions, saying the resolution meant choosing a side in a civil war. He will fly to Syria for talks with Assad tomorrow. The criticism of the vetoes showed no signs of abating, however. A rep for David Cameron said, "Russia and China are protecting a regime that is killing thousands of people. We find their position incomprehensible and inexcusable." France's Defense minister didn't mince words: " There are political cultures which deserve a kick in the ass. To accept that a dictator can operate freely is disgraceful for governments that accept it."

Syracuse, NY -- Jenna Hinman's two-month battle with a rare cancer captured the attention of thousands of people around the world who prayed for her recovery and are now mourning her death. Jenna Hinman died Monday afternoon after developing pneumonia on Sunday, according to the Prayers for Jenna Facebook page. She was 26. U.S. Army Sgt. Brandon Hinman and Jenna Hinman were thrilled when they learned that they were going to have twin daughters. The couple, who were married in December 2010, was stationed at Fort Drum. Brandon Hinman is from Weedsport and Jenna Hinman is from Port Byron. At 30-weeks pregnant, Jenna Hinman gave birth to Kinleigh Ann Hinman and Azlynn Mary Hinman by emergency C-section on March 3. Doctors immediately discovered she was battling stage 3 choriocarcinoma, a rare, life-threatening cancer. Jenna Hinman and her premature daughters were taken to Crouse Hospital. The babies were cared for in the neonatal intensive care unit and Jenna Hinman was placed in a medically-induced coma and on life support. She was placed on the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) machine, which worked as her lungs for 32 days. Doctors said Jenna Hinman's treatment was unprecedented and unorthodox. Doctors slowly turned down the ECMO in early April. It was turned off on April 6. Jenna Hinman continued to receive chemotherapy and her cancer count slowly decreased, but Jenna Hinman remained on life support and was in critical but stable condition. The twins remained in the neonatal intensive care unit for six weeks and were released from the hospital on April 17. The two-month-old girls are staying at Jenna Hinman's parent's home. Jenna Hinman's childhood bedroom has been turned into a nursery for the girls. With every milestone and setback, the public was updated by the Prayers for Jenna Facebook page. Two of Jenna Hinman's close friends updated the page with Brandon Hinman's permission. The page has 268,000 likes and features thousands of messages from people across the country and around the world. At 7:07 p.m. Monday, Jenna Hinman's followers received the update that Jenna Hinman had died. "To Jenna's many devoted followers, today our hearts are broken. We are devastated to inform you that Jenna has suddenly passed away after a courageous two month fight against cancer," according to the update that was posted at 7:07 p.m. Within one hour, 21,000 comments appeared on the post. Alicia Dullen Heneka wrote: I'm so very sorry for your loss. This page has proved that strangers can come together and prayers are so amazingly strong. Although Jenna wasn't able to beat this she and her family are so blessed to have had the past 2 months as a family. Prayers to all. Patty Genovese Wood wrote: So very very sorry for your loss. Our whole community, state and country has been saying so many prayers for you and your family Jenna. We will continue those prayers for your family and friends and your wonderful husband and those beautiful babies. RIP Jenna. We are all heartbroken More than $167,000 has been raised on the family's GoFundMe page since it was created on March 11 by Jenna Hinman's uncle, John Warter. The military insurance TriCare will pay for all the family's medical expenses, but the funds raised will help offset travel and food expenses, as well has help support the family's needs in the future. Thousands of the Hinman family's supporters took to Facebook Monday night to react to the news of Jenna Hinman's death. Kri Jensen wrote: "Although never having met this family, you have all become 'family' as we prayed and waited and hoped. Offering prayers for all of you. My heart breaks too ... so I can only imagine how tough this is for all of you. So thankful her family has had this time with her, including her precious girls. Love and payers to you all." Sarah Moses covers the northern suburbs of Onondaga County and Oswego County. Contact Sarah at [email protected] or 470-2298. Follow @SarahMoses315 ||||| Jenna Hinman, a Syracuse, N.Y., mother who learned she had a rare placental cancer just after delivering twin girls last month, died Monday of complications of pneumonia, according to the hospital that treated her. "We are heartbroken and our hearts go out to her family," Crouse Hospital spokesman Bob Allen told ABCNews.com today. "She touched so many people from around the country." Hinman, 26, gave birth March 3 to Kinleigh Ann Hinman and Azlynn Mary Hinman by emergency C-section only to have doctors immediately discover she was battling stage 3 choriocarcinoma. The twins, who were delivered premature at 30 weeks (2 pounds, 9 ounces, and 3 pounds, 6 ounces, respectively), remained in the neonatal intensive care unit for six weeks, but today are thriving, according to her Facebook support page, Prayers for Jenna Courtesy of Sarah Born "Jenna did not lose her battle with cancer," her friends wrote on that page. "She beat the cancer in a way almost no one ever does. The type of cancer she had almost always claims the life of the child, not the parent. Jenna sacrificed herself to save her two children. She defeated the cancer before it ever hurt the two most beloved people to her in the world. She fulfilled her role as a mother in a way almost no one else could have. Her body took the blow and saved her children." Since being discharged from the hospital's Walter R.G. Baker Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, the twins have been living with their maternal grandparents while their father serves his military duty. Mom fights for life with rare placenta cancer. Prayers for Jenna/Facebook Choriocarcinoma is a malignant form of gestational trophoblastic disease (GTD), tumors that involve abnormal growth of cells inside a woman's uterus. This particular kind affects only about 2 to 7 of every 100,000 pregnancies in the United States, according to the American Cancer Society. Choriocarcinoma is much more likely than other kinds of GTD to grow quickly and spread to organs away from the uterus. About one-quarter of women who develop this disease miscarry. Hinman had been fighting for her life in a medically induced coma for the past two months as the rare cancer filled her lungs with tumors. Dr. David Landsberg, chief of medicine for Crouse Hospital in Syracuse, told ABCNews.com in March that Hinman's cancer was serious but "curable." Her husband, U.S. Army Sgt. Brandon Hinman, told ABCNews.com at the time, "We're hanging in there," as his wife endured chemotherapy and ECMO, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy. Hinman is stationed at Fort Drum in Watertown, N.Y. "She's probably the most kind-hearted person I ever met," Hinman said of his wife. "She would go out of her way for anyone, give them the shirt off her back." The couple had difficulty getting pregnant because of his multiple deployments to Europe and Afghanistan. "We never had a solid amount of time together," he said. But just before another deployment, they got the good news. "I got to stay back," he said. "It was amazing." Just last weekend, Syracuse photographer Sarah Born did a photo shoot of the Hinman twins with their father and grandparents. Jenna Hinman was unable to attend, but helped Born select the theme for the shoot, choosing a pink backdrop for one, as it was her favorite color. Another photo incorporated peach, the color for choriocarcinoma, and a third was against the U.S. flag, a nod to the family's patriotism. Updates on Jenna Hinman's progress had been positive, but the family posted an urgent update to their Facebook page Sunday to say that her condition was deteriorating. Friends who are running the page called for an emergency prayer request. "Her vital signs have become unstable over the past 12 hours and her ventilator has been turned all the way up," they wrote. "There is speculation of infection and/or internal bleeding," according to the update posted at 10:53 a.m. Sunday. They posted that night that she had developed pneumonia. "Jenna is now on powerful medication to fight this infection and we will keep you updated as often as possible," the update stated. "Please continue to pray that Jenna's lungs will clear and heal quickly. Jenna's condition tonight is fragile and critical - she has fought valiantly thus far, and we truly believe she has a lot of fight left in her still." The Syracuse Post-Standard, in an editorial today, wrote, "Thousands upon thousands" of people around the country rallied for the Hinmans. "They sent messages of hope and inspiration," according to the piece. "They donated money. Many cried at Monday's news that Jenna had died. We didn't know her, but her story touched the essential fiber that makes us human, makes us care for those beset by troubles we can't imagine. Here, in the happiest moment of a family's life together, the birth of children, comes the saddest news of all." The family has a GoFundMe. fund set up to raise money for their expenses associated with the ordeal. ||||| So how does one take in the sad story of the death of Jenna Hinman? How does a wonderful story about the birth of twins become one of such anguish? How does one make sense of the senseless? Jenna Hinman was 26 when she died Monday afternoon, succumbing to pneumonia at Crouse Hospital in Syracuse. She died after a brief fight against a rare cancer, one linked to her pregnancy. She died after doctors performed cesarean section at 30 weeks to save the lives of two beautiful babies, who now are held in the arms of their loving father, U.S. Army Sgt. Brandon Hinman. It was during that procedure that the cancer was discovered. It was an aggressive beast, called choriocarcinoma, that grew in her uterus. Thousands upon thousands rallied for Jenna. They sent messages of hope and inspiration. They donated money. Many cried at Monday's news that Jenna had died. We didn't know her, but her story touched the essential fiber that makes us human, makes us care for those beset by troubles we can't imagine. Here, in the happiest moment of a family's life together, the birth of children, comes the saddest news of all. There are no words that will make the pain go away. Just the assurance that the girls will be cared for and loved and that, someday, Sgt. Hinman will gaze at his daughters and catch glimpses of Jenna's eyes, or her nose, or her hair, or her smile. He will one day hear them laugh and giggle and hear an echo of Jenna. We hope that Sgt. Hinman will take solace in that. Our sympathy joins the words of sympathy of thousands being extended to the Hinman family. And our hope extends to all people who fight the same brave fight day after day in hospital beds everywhere. Sgt. Hinman said something shortly after Jenna's cancer was detected that resonates today. "She's fighting," he said. "We're taking it minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour and day-by-day." That's all anyone can do, really. ||||| Jenna Leigh Hinman (Blaisdell), of Watertown, NY, died suddenly on May 5th 2014 after a heroic 2-month battle with cancer, which was discovered only days after she gave birth prematurely to twin girls. A typical morning turned into panic on March 3rd 2014 when Jenna had difficulty catching her breath and started experiencing labor pains. Jenna was in her 30th week of pregnancy and was rushed to the emergency room where her baby girls were born via emergency C-Section. Due to the babies' premature birth, they were whisked away to the NICU with Jenna only getting a quick glimpse of her newborns - Kinleigh Anne Hinman (2 pounds 9 ounces) and Azlynn Mary Hinman (3 pounds 6 ounces), both in good health. Soon after the delivery Jenna began having increased difficulty breathing and the situation quickly escalated from fear that she had pneumonia to a realization that she was fighting for her very life. Jenna was placed in a medically induced coma on March 6th 2014. It was then that the family learned that Jenna was suffering from a rare, pregnancy-related cancer called choriocarcinoma, which had filled her body with tumors and lesions. The cancer was complicated by a chest/lung infection, which caused her to bleed internally and her lungs' ability to function deteriorated to the point where they were rendered useless. To combat this cancer and infection combination Crouse Hospital ICU in Syracuse, NY formed a team of prestigious local and international medical professionals that flew in to treat her. Jenna received heavy doses of chemotherapy and her life was also supported by an ECMO machine, which essentially removed blood from her body, oxygenated it, and then pumped it back through her veins since her lungs could no longer do it. These lifesaving efforts were essential, though they came with their own set of risks. Jenna's infected lungs were bleeding, which was exacerbated by the chemo therapy, and for the ECMO machine to run properly there was a need for blood thinners to stop the tubes from filling with dangerous clots "“ which put Jenna at risk for uncontrolled bleeding. The intricate nature of these life support mechanisms resulted in many dramatic scares in which Jenna was nearly lost. Jenna remained in the medically induced coma for several weeks until her body started to show signs of improvement. Slowly Jenna was weaned off of the ECMO machine and eventually it was completely removed. Jenna continued to be supported by a ventilator but as the chemotherapy started to work, the medical team brought her slowly out of sedation. In Jenna's final few weeks, those who love her were filled with renewed hope for her survival as she began working hard in physical therapy when she had the strength, started to show her spunky personality again, and was able to interact with and recognize her family and friends. During this time, Jenna was able to bond with her precious baby girls. She didn't have the strength to hold them tight but she basked in the glory of being a new mommy when her babies rested on her chest. Jenna had come very close to completely beating cancer when complications arose, which ultimately took her life. Jenna's husband, US Army SGT Brandon Hinman of Fort Drum, NY, who stood by her side every day of her illness, has been left to care for and raise their beautiful daughters as a single father. Brandon has defended our country and our freedom multiple times in Afghanistan and had prepared himself mentally for the fact that his career could cost him his life "“ but he, nor anyone else, had prepared themselves to lose Jenna instead. Initially this fundraising page was created to raise funds to support and sustain the Hinman family during Jenna's long road through recovery, but now its purpose is to provide some form of financial safety net for this beautiful family that has suffered the unimaginable. All contributions will go to the incalculable costs that face this young family in the hard years ahead. Thank you for reading Jenna's story and for contributing. Please visit the Prayers for Jenna facebook page to continue following the Hinman Twins as they grow www.facebook.com/prayersforjenna PLEASE KEEP ALL COMMENTS POSITIVE ||||| For those who knew Jenna, it feels more than serendipitous that her ...

A military mom whose rare form of cancer was discovered when she gave birth to twins has died, after two months of battling the illness and attracting a devoted online following. Jenna Hinman, 26, succumbed on Monday to a placental cancer that doctors found when she gave birth to Azlynn and Kinleigh on March 3, ABC News reports. The girls were delivered 30 weeks' premature (at 3 pounds, 6 ounces, and 2 pounds 9 ounces, respectively) and stayed in intensive care for 6 weeks, but are fine today. For Jenna, the battle was far more severe. Doctors had to invent treatments because Hinman's stage 3 choriocarcinoma—which originates in fast-growing placental tissue—is incredibly rare, the Post-Standard reports. Hinman was placed in a medically induced coma and given chemotherapy, but while her cancer count fell, she stayed in critical condition and eventually died of complications from pneumonia. "She's probably the most kind-hearted person I ever met," said her husband, Army Sgt. Brandon Hinman, back in March. "She would go out of her way for anyone, give them the shirt off her back." The outpouring has been tremendous, as thousands sent messages and donated money: "Many cried at Monday's news that Jenna had died," wrote the Post-Standard in an editorial. Click for more on her story.

It's early. Very early in the wake of the chilling news that the FBI thwarted a terrorist bombing at Friday night's "holiday" tree-lighting ceremony at Pioneer Square. Just about all I have to react to, this early, is Bryan Denson's piece, filed late last night, on Oregonlive. The nut graph, as they say: Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a Somali-born U.S. citizen, was arrested at 5:42 p.m., 18 minutes before the tree lighting was to occur, on an accusation of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. The felony charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a $250,000 fine. Yes, it takes one's breath away. Mohamud, according to the FBI affidavit, tried to contact someone involved with terrorist activities overseas. Mohamud had written essays for "Jihad Recollections," a delightful online forum advocating holy war. Mohamud had been dreaming of jihad since the age of 15, and told FBI operatives posing as terrorists that the tree-lighting ceremony was the ideal, unguarded spot to make those dreams a reality. Yet as I read on in Denson's piece, an uncomfortable question quickly rises: How far would Mohamud have traveled down that road without the help of those very operatives? As I said, it's early. The sun's not even up. All anyone has to go by at the moment is the FBI affidavit that was used to support the criminal complaint signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. But that affidavit notes the following: -- When Mohamud could not get in touch with terrorists overseas, the FBI contacted him. -- While Mohamud "spent months working on logistics," Denson's story notes, and "allegedly identified a location to place the bomb," he "mailed bomb components to the FBI operatives, who he believed were assembling the device." Does that mean Mohamud did not build the bomb? -- The FBI "operative" was right there with Mohamud on Nov. 4 at "a remote spot in Lincoln County, where they detonated a bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run for the upcoming attack." -- And the FBI transported Mohamud to Portland so that he could carry out the deadly bombing. It's early. Very early. I'm as spooked as anyone by what might have happened last night at Pioneer Courthouse Square. And I am incredibly thankful the FBI and our national security forces are on guard. But it's still unclear how close Mohamed Osman Mohamud would have gotten to Portland's "living room" if no one had ever shown any interest in his plans. -- Steve Duin ||||| The FBI thwarted an attempted terrorist bombing in Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square before the city's annual tree-lighting Friday night, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Oregon. A Corvallis man, thinking he was going to ignite a bomb, drove a van to the corner of the square at Southwest Yamhill Street and Sixth Avenue and attempted to detonate it. However, the supposed explosive was a dummy that FBI operatives supplied to him, according to an affidavit in support of a criminal complaint signed Friday night by U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a Somali-born U.S. citizen, was arrested at 5:42 p.m., 18 minutes before the tree lighting was to occur, on an accusation of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. The felony charge carries a maximum sentence of life in prison and a $250,000 fine. The arrest was the culmination of a long-term undercover operation, during which Mohamud had been monitored for months as his alleged bomb plot developed. "The device was in fact inert, and the public was never in danger," according to a news release from the U.S. Attorney's Office. The investigation involved the FBI, Oregon State Police, Portland Police Bureau, Corvallis Police Department and Lincoln County Sheriff's Office. Mohamud will appear in U.S. District Court in Portland on Monday. "This defendant's chilling determination is a stark reminder that there are people -- even here in Oregon -- who are determined to kill Americans," said Oregon U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton. "The good work of law enforcement protected Oregonians in this case -- and we have no reason to believe there is any continuing threat arising from this case." According to the FBI affidavit, the case began in August 2009 when Mohamud was in e-mail contact with an unindicted associate overseas who was believed to be involved in terrorist activities. In December 2009, while the unindicted associate was in a frontier province of Pakistan, Mohamud and the associate discussed the possibility of Mohamud traveling to Pakistan to participate in violent jihad. The associate allegedly referred Mohamud to a second associate overseas and provided him with a name and e-mail address. In the months that followed, Mohamud made several unsuccessful attempts to contact the second associate. Ultimately, an FBI undercover operative contacted Mohamud in a June 2010 e-mail under the guise of being an associate of the first unindicted associate. Mohamud and the FBI operative agreed to meet in Portland a month later. Mohamud allegedly told the FBI operative that he had written articles that were published in Jihad Recollections, an online magazine that advocated holy war. Mohamud also indicated he intended to become "operational," meaning he wanted to put an explosion together but needed help. The two met again in August 2010 in a Portland hotel. "During this meeting, Mohamud explained how he had been thinking of committing some form of violent jihad since the age of 15," the affidavit says. "Mohamud then told (the FBI operatives) that he had identified a potential target for a bomb: the Christmas tree-lighting ceremony in Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square on Nov. 26, 2010." The FBI operatives cautioned Mohamud several times about the seriousness of his plan, noting that there would be many people, including children, at the event, and that Mohamud could abandon his plans at any time with no shame. "You know there's going to be a lot of children there?" an FBI operative asked Mohamud. "You know there are gonna be a lot of children there?" Mohamud allegedly responded he was looking for a "huge mass that will ... be attacked in their own element with their families celebrating the holidays." Mohamud dismissed concerns about law enforcement, explaining that, " ... It's in Oregon; and Oregon, like, you know, nobody ever thinks about," according to the affidavit. "The threat was very real," said Oregon's FBI Special Agent in Charge Arthur Balizan. "Our investigation shows that Mohamud was absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale. At the same time, I want to reassure the people of this community that, every turn, we denied him the ability to actually carry out the attack." Mohamud maintained his interest in carrying out the attack and spent months working on logistics. He allegedly identified a location to place the bomb and mailed bomb components to the FBI operatives, who he believed were assembling the device. He also mailed them passport photos so he could sneak out of the country after the attack, according to the affidavit. He provided the FBI operatives with a thumbdrive that contained detailed directions to the bomb location and operational instructions for the attack. On Nov. 4, Mohamud and the FBI operatives traveled to a remote spot in Lincoln County, where they detonated a bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run for the upcoming attack. On the drive back to Corvalis, FBI operatives quizzed Mohamud about whether he was capable of looking at the bodies of those who would be killed in his planned Portland attack. "I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave either dead or injured," Mohamud reportedly told the FBI operatives, the affidavit says. Later that day, Mohamud recorded a video of himself with the FBI operatives in which he read a written statement offering his reasons for the planned Portland bombing. On Nov. 18, FBI operatives picked up Mohamud to travel to Portland, where they would finalize details of the attack. David S. Kris, assistant U.S. attorney general for national security, said, "The complaint alleges that Mohamud attempted to detonate what he believes to be a vehicle bomb at a crowded holiday event in downtown Portland, but a coordinated undercover law enforcement action was able to thwart his efforts and ensure no one was harmed. " -- Bryan Denson Read the Department of Justice's press release on the plot ||||| Torsten Kjellstrand - The Oregonian / AP (Nov. 27) -- Police in Oregon have arrested a Somali teenager for allegedly trying to detonate a car bomb in a crowd of revelers at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in downtown Portland.Agents swooped in to nab 19-year-old Mohamed Osman Mohamud, a naturalized U.S. citizen, just after he dialed a mobile phone Friday evening that he allegedly believed would detonate a van packed with explosives. But the bomb was a fake, planted by undercover agents in a sophisticated sting operation that began back in June.The FBI began their investigation into Mohamud, who attended Oregon State University, after receiving information about the teenager from a source who was worried about him, an official told The Associated Press Mohamud yelled "Allahu Akbar!" -- Arabic for "God is Great!" -- and kicked at federal agents as they arrested him, The Associated Press quoted prosecutors as saying . He's been charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, and is expected to appear in federal court in Portland on Monday.While the bomb was fake, "the threat was very real," senior FBI agent Arthur Balizan told Reuters . "Our investigation shows that Mohamud was absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale."The annual Christmas tree lighting in Portland's Pioneer Courthouse Square draws hundreds of families with small children. Before the planned attack, undercover FBI agents questioned Mohamud about his would-be victims."You know there are gonna be a lot of children there?" an undercover agent asked him, according to court documents excerpted by The Oregonian newspaper Mohamud allegedly responded that he intentionally wanted to target a "huge mass that will ... be attacked in their own element with their families celebrating the holidays," CNN reported He was arrested at 5:42 p.m. Friday -- 18 minutes before Portland's Christmas tree lit up to the cheers of many children, without incident.An FBI affidavit excerpted by Reuters quoted Mohamud as saying: "I want whoever is attending that event (in Portland) to leave, to leave either dead or injured."The teenager faces a maximum sentence of life in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.Court documents show that back in June, federal agents learned that Mohamud had been in contact with associates in Pakistan, seeking information or help on how to participate in jihad, or Islamic holy war. In July, undercover agents met with the Somali teen, who allegedly told them he wanted to become "operational.""Asked what he meant by 'operational,' Mohamud stated that he wanted to put an 'explosion' together, but needed help," CNN quoted the Justice Department as saying. In August, he suggested a target: Portland's Christmas tree lighting.The documents quote Mohamud as telling agents that it might be easier to carry out a terror attack in Oregon than in New York, for instance, where security might be tighter. "It's in Oregon, and Oregon like you know, nobody ever thinks about it," he allegedly said."This defendant's chilling determination is a stark reminder that there are people -- even here in Oregon -- who are determined to kill Americans," U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton told The Oregonian. ||||| Federal agents in a sting operation arrested a Somali-born teenager just as he tried blowing up a van full of what he believed were explosives at a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony, federal authorities said. This image provided by the Mauthnomah County Sheriff's Office shows Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, arrested and charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction. Officials say he tried to detonate... (Associated Press) The tree is lit on Pioneer Courthouse square Friday night Nov. 26, 2010 to the music of Pink Martini and with Santa Claus in front of a shoulder-to-shoulder crowd singing holiday music in the square.... (Associated Press) The bomb was a fake supplied by the agents and the public was never in danger, authorities said. Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, was arrested at 5:40 p.m. local time Friday just after he dialed a cell phone that he thought would set off the blast but instead brought federal agents and police swooping down on him. Yelling "Allahu Akbar!" _ Arabic for "God is great!" _ Mohamud tried to kick agents and police after he was taken into custody, according to prosecutors. "The threat was very real," said Arthur Balizan, special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon. "Our investigation shows that Mohamud was absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale." The FBI affidavit that outlined the investigation alleges that Mohamud planned the attack for months, at one point mailing bomb components to FBI operatives, whom he believed were assembling the device. It said Mohamud was warned several times about the seriousness of his plan, that women and children could be killed, and that he could back out, but he told agents: "Since I was 15 I thought about all this" and "It's gonna be a fireworks show ... a spectacular show." Mohamud, a naturalized U.S. citizen living in Corvallis, was charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. A court appearance was set for Monday. Few details were available about him late Friday. Authorities allowed the plot to proceed in order to build up enough evidence to charge the suspect with attempt. Officials didn't say if the suspect had any ties to other Americans recently accused of trying to carry out attacks on U.S. soil, including alleged efforts in May by a Pakistan-born man to set off a car bomb near Times Square or another Pakistan-born Virginia resident accused last month in a bomb plot to kill commuters. U.S. Attorney Dwight Holton released federal court documents to The Associated Press and the Oregonian newspaper that show the sting operation began in June after an undercover agent learned that Mohamud had been in regular e-mail contact with an "unindicted associate" in Pakistan's northwest, a frontier region where Al Qaida and Afghanistan's Taliban insurgents are strong. The two used coded language in which the FBI believes Mohamud discussed traveling to Pakistan to prepare for "violent jihad," the documents said. In June an FBI agent contacted Mohamud "under the guise of being affiliated with" the suspected terrorist. But the documents did not say how federal officials first became aware of Mohamud. An undercover agent met with him a month later in Portland, where they "discussed violent jihad," according to the court documents. As a trial run, Mohamud and agents detonated a bomb in Oregon's backcounry earlier this month. "This defendant's chilling determination is a stark reminder that there are people _ even here in Oregon _ who are determined to kill Americans," Holton said. Friday, an agent and Mohamud drove to downtown Portland in a white van that carried six 55-gallon drums with detonation cords and plastic caps, but all of them were inert, the complaint states. They left the van near the downtown ceremony site and went to a train station where Mohamud was given a cell phone that he thought would blow up the vehicle, according to the complaint. There was no detonation when he dialed, and when he tried again federal agents and police made their move. Omar Jamal, first secretary to the Somali mission to the United Nations, condemned the plot and urged Somalis to cooperate with police and the FBI. "Talk to them and tell them what you know so we can all be safe," Jamal said. Somalia Foreign Minister Mohamed Abullahi Omaar said his government is "ready and willing" to offer the U.S. any assistance it may need to prevent similar attempts. "It is tragic for the family of the young man, it is tragic for the people he tried to harm. It is tragic for all of us here," said Omaar, whose government is holed up in a few blocks of the capital, Mogadishu, while much of the country's southern and central regions are ruled by Islamist insurgents. "Mohamud's attempt is neither representative nor an example of Somalis. Somalis are peace loving people," he said. Tens of thousands of Somalis have resettled in the United States since their country plunged into lawlessness in 1991. U.S. authorities have been struggling against a recent spate of terror plans by U.S. citizens or residents. In the Times Square plot, Faisal Shazhad allegedly tried to set off a car bomb at a bustling street corner. U.S. authorities had no intelligence about Shahzad's plot until the smoking car turned up in Manhattan. Late last month, Farooque Ahmed, 34, of Virginia was arrested and accused of casing Washington-area subway stations in what he thought was an al-Qaida plot to bomb and kill commuters. Similar to the Portland sting, the bombing plot was a ruse conducted over the past six months by federal officials. And a year ago in another federal sting, 19-year-old Jordanian Hosam Smadi was arrested on charges he intended to bomb a downtown Dallas skyscraper. Federal officials said he placed what he believed was a car bomb outside the building but was instead a decoy device given him by an undercover FBI agent.

FBI agents used another sting operation to foil a terror plot in Portland yesterday, as they did in Virginia recently. Steve Duin of the Oregonian is "incredibly thankful" to the FBI that all ended well, but adds this caveat: "It's still unclear how close Mohamed Osman Mohamud would have gotten to Portland's 'living room' if no one had ever shown any interest in his plans." The FBI first became aware of the 19-year-old Somali native last year when he emailed an unnamed associate in Pakistan and allegedly discussed "violent jihad" in coded language. Agents in Oregon contacted him after that and began the sting in June, helping him along the way with his plans. Earlier this month, agents accompanied Mohamud to a remote area in Oregon to detonate a test device. They also assembled the fake bomb Mohamud was to set off yesterday after he mailed them (very real) components for it. "Since I was 15 I thought about all this," he's quoted as saying in court documents. He also hoped for mass casualties of families celebrating the holiday. “I want whoever is attending that event to leave, either dead or injured." See the Oregonian, AP, and AOL for more details.

Concerns about global climate change and its impacts on the environment and the economy are encouraging policy-makers and stakeholders to explore a range of options to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). Congress is considering legislation that would, among other things, provide incentives for parties to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions or to sequester (store) additional CO 2 . The possible use of forestry and agricultural practices and lands to mitigate or sequester CO 2 is part of the debate. However, substantial uncertainty exists about current ability to accurately quantify, monitor, and verify the amount of carbon sequestered by various agricultural and forestry practices. By comparison, measuring the carbon from a discrete point source, such as a power plant, is relatively easy and precise. Incorporating the agriculture and forestry sectors in an emissions reduction program will likely require a firm basis for measuring carbon inventories and change for forestry and agricultural practices and lands. Farm and forest activities can be both a source and a sink of GHGs, releasing GHGs through plant and animal respiration and decomposition and removing CO 2 through photosynthesis, storing it in vegetation and soils (a process known as sequestration). A range of land management, agricultural conservation, and other farmland practices can reduce or abate emissions and/or sequester carbon. These include tree planting, soil conservation, manure and grazing management, and land retirement, conversion, and restoration. Many of these activities, however, may be impracticable for an emission trading program because they might not meet credible standards for quantifying, monitoring, and verifying emission reduction or carbon storage. Reliable tools and techniques are needed for carbon inventories and carbon change on forests and agricultural lands. The ability to measure carbon levels allows countries that have committed to reducing GHG emissions to measure their current annual emissions and carbon storage (and changes in carbon stocks). Current estimates show that forests account for a significant share of estimated existing carbon stocks globally; agricultural lands account for a small share of stored carbon. Also, the ability to measure carbon levels provides the means to estimate the mitigation potential of forest or agriculture activities that sequester additional carbon in soils or vegetation (i.e., result in a net reduction compared to estimated baseline conditions or current sequestration). This may allow a farm or forestry activity to be recognized as a way to mitigate or offset emissions—through voluntary action, an emissions trading market, or a regulatory program. For an emissions trading program to be credible, a participating entity is usually required to meet a series of established protocols that specify what, when, where, and how to measure changes in carbon. Protocols provide technical guidelines or standardized rules for quantifying, monitoring, and verifying the mitigation of an activity. They specify requirements on project eligibility, scale and baseline measurements, measurement frequency, and verification. The difficulty is developing credible protocols that are quantitatively defensible and readily applicable across areas with differing land uses, weather, and other site-specific conditions. Protocols also address, to varying degrees, concerns about the validity of activities, such as additionality, leakage, and permanence. Protocols may be either voluntary or set by regulation. In one voluntary market, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has protocols for a range of soil and land management projects, including agricultural methane, soil carbon, rangeland soil carbon management, and tree planting projects. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)—the first regional mandatory, market-based effort to reduce GHG emissions—is developing technical standards for a narrower set of offset projects from the agricultural and forestry sectors, providing for afforestation and methane reduction from livestock operations. Individual requirements of current protocols and standards can vary widely by program. Numerous methods exist to measure forest and agricultural carbon. The appropriate measure to use in specific circumstances depends on several variables, including the purpose for measuring the carbon, the scale and basis to be measured, the frequency of the measurement, and how the measurement is to be verified. Two geographic scales are commonly used for measuring GHG emissions—the national/regional level to report GHG emissions and participate in broad efforts to reduce emissions; and the local/site-specific level for projects to offset emissions. Regardless of scale, the emission reduction or carbon sequestration is compared to a baseline —the historic GHG emissions or carbon stocks at a specified point in time. The scale and baseline timing are typically specified in the protocol of the reporting, marketing, or regulating organization. Sometimes, for projects with multiple land uses, the land is stratified into the various land uses (e.g., cropland, pasture, sapling forest, mature forest), with a different baseline established for each use. Protocols typically identify when GHG emissions must be measured. An initial measurement is needed to establish the baseline. This must be done prior to the onset of a project, to allow for measuring the change that results from the action. Occasionally, a historic baseline is specified; for example, the Kyoto Protocol identified 1990 emissions as the baseline for measuring emission reductions. Other options include a current level, or other level whereby a project is compared to "business as usual." The protocols also identify the frequency and timing of measurements. For example, CCX contracts for agricultural projects require annual measurements to assure that the emission reduction or carbon sequestration is actually occurring. Frequency of measurement also depends on the rate of change in carbon storage. Some carbon pools, such as forest soils, change relatively slowly (unless the forest is disturbed), and measurement once a decade may be sufficient. For other carbon pools, such as pastures or managed lands, differences within and across years can be substantial, and may require more frequent measurement. Timing can be critical, and alternative measurements may vary widely. The amount of carbon stored in vegetation, in particular, varies over the course of a year, with carbon sequestered during the spring, carbon stored in foliage at its maximum in late summer, and carbon released during the winter as the deciduous leaves decompose. Thus, consistent timing for annual measures is an important element for agricultural and forestry carbon projects. Verifying the emission reduction or carbon sequestration is critical in efforts to mitigate climate change. It is particularly important for agriculture and forestry projects, as these activities are harder to measure reliably than other types of GHG offsets. One question is who will be responsible for verifying changes in carbon, which raises questions about the role of a regulatory agency for accrediting claimed changes in carbon levels from an activity. Existing programs typically recommend or require that the carbon offset be verified by an independent entity. Independent verification may be an auditing function, to assure the reality and accuracy of the carbon offset for markets (buyers and sellers), regulations (emitters and regulators), and reports (emitters and reporting organizations). One source has prescribed several qualities for independent verification: an "independent, qualified, third-party verifier" using "approved methodologies and regulations" and "whose compensation is not in any way dependent on the outcomes of their decisions" and who follows set procedures to avoid conflicts of interest. As voluntary and regulated markets for GHG emissions offsets develop, qualified, independent organizations to verify carbon offsets will be needed. Entities qualified to verify agriculture and forest carbon offsets must be proven to be knowledgeable about carbon measurement. One source notes: "To provide good quality and trustworthy oversight, a sufficiently rigorous accreditation process will be necessary to ensure that the verifiers have the needed expertise." This process could parallel the development of independent auditors for certifying sustainable forestry programs. Basic approaches for measuring agricultural and forest carbon inventories and change include on-site measurement, indirect measurement from off-site tools, and estimation using process models or inferences. A hybrid approach involving a combination of approaches (e.g., combining modeling with on-site sampling and independent verification) might improve the accuracy enough to be useful while still containing costs. Because of the inherent challenges associated with balancing the cost of measuring carbon and the accuracy of these measurements, any practicable system for measuring forest and agricultural carbon might require a mix of these different methods and approaches, rather than a single approach. Direct measurement of the carbon content of agricultural and forestry soils and vegetation through field sampling and site-specific laboratory estimates is perhaps the most accurate way to measure carbon levels and changes. However, this is time-consuming, costly, and often requires continuous sampling and replication via a census of soil and vegetation carbon for all agriculture and forestry projects, and may be infeasible. Also, it cannot cover large areas. Samples can be taken and the results extrapolated, based on soil survey, land cover, climate, and other spatial data. Sampling patterns (e.g., a grid, random, or stratified random), intensity (e.g., the area to be sampled), and frequency are likely to be specified in the protocols, and many sources discuss sampling methods for agriculture and forestry projects. The more intensive and frequent the sampling, the greater the cost, but the higher the likely accuracy of the data. Most experts suggest some sampling to ensure the accuracy of models or off-site measures, especially performed consistently over time. As with verification, the entity that measures the on-site carbon can affect perceptions of the accuracy of the measurement. Landowners or other offset sellers can perform the measurement—both at the outset of the project (for the baseline) and periodically during the life of the project. This could reduce costs, because they are commonly on the site, but raises questions of credibility, since they have an interest in the reported carbon levels. Ensuring that verification is conducted by independent verifiers might be sufficient to assuage market concerns over credibility, but could involve high project verification costs. Tools exist to calculate carbon content without actually being on the site. Remote sensing—using photographic and other images from aircraft or satellites—can be used to measure carbon-related factors. For example, infrared imagery can detect live biomass, with variations in the image reflecting variations in the type and level of biomass. Remote sensing has long been used in forestry for calculating commercial timber volumes of forest stands. The principal advantage of remote sensing is coverage, given its ability to assess a wide area relatively quickly. Another advantage is that the remote sensing and the analysis of the results are generally performed by experts, improving the credibility of the results and probably lowering the cost of verification. It can provide highly accurate information for some types of carbon-related measures, such as activities with readily visible results (e.g., deforestation and afforestation) or measurable carbon pools (e.g., live above-ground biomass). One disadvantage is the high fixed cost of providing remote coverage; satellites are very expensive to launch and maintain. Aircraft may be less expensive but may cover less area. Once the satellites are in place, extending satellite coverage to additional areas is relatively inexpensive. For some carbon-related measures, such as activities with less visible impacts (e.g., sustainable forestry) or less readily measurable carbon pools (e.g., soil carbon), remote sensing is problematic. Also, in some areas, cloud cover can interrupt regular measurements. Methods for consistently and reliably interpreting remote imagery are still under development, and are usually recommended to be used in conjunction with other techniques. Another indirect approach is to estimate agricultural and forestry carbon with models or other analytical tools. Models are available to estimate a variety of ecosystem processes, and are used to depict site-specific conditions. Models, especially computer models, are typically built from extensive research and data sets, and provide average or archetypical estimates of physical area, temperature, precipitation, forest or soil type, slope, plant diversity, and microbial activity. The accuracy of the results depends in large part on the validity and measurement of the input variables for the model. Data may be presented in tabular form, called "look-up tables" because estimates can be looked up in the table based on a few key variables, such as forest type and tree age or soil type. A related simpler approach might use inferences or generalized input data scaled up to the size of the farm or forested area to approximate the sequestration for an activity. Such an approach may reduce costs, but provide a relatively low level of precision, and possibly high verification costs. The advantage of a modeling approach is that it is relatively simple and low-cost, and often provides consistent estimates. However, it may not reflect actual differences within and across sites and activities, since it relies on archetypical or average carbon estimates and not site-specific carbon measurements. Model proponents often suggest using occasional site-specific sampling to assure the validity of the model chosen for the project and site, and some suggest adjusting the estimates based on the samples. This introduces the potential for bias in reporting carbon, and significantly increases the difficulty of verification. In addition, for most situations and project types, numerous models exist. These competing models may yield quite different estimates for the same site, because of the different data sets and assumptions used in constructing the models. One model may yield the most accurate estimates in certain circumstances, while another model may yield more accurate estimates in other circumstances. Congress has already taken steps to address some of the challenges associated with measuring carbon changes from forested and agricultural lands and practices. The 2008 farm bill ( P.L. 110-246 , the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008) includes a provision (Sec. 2709) directing USDA to "establish technical guidelines that outline science-based methods to measure the environmental services benefits," including carbon storage, from forests and agricultural activities. This includes developing measurement procedures and a reporting protocol and registry. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ( P.L. 110-140 , Sec. 712) directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a methodology to assess carbon sequestration and emissions from ecosystems. This methodology is to cover measuring, monitoring, and quantifying GHG emissions and reductions, and provide estimates of sequestration capacity and the mitigation potential of different ecosystem management practices. Congress continues to face the question of whether its current authorized activities provide adequate and sufficient guidelines for accurately measuring carbon levels from forest and agricultural activities. The Appendix provides an annotated assessment of a range of agricultural and forestry activities, describing potential considerations according to measurement (quantification, verification, and monitoring), additionality, permanence, and leakage. The text box below provides a brief description of these different criteria. For more background information, see CRS Report RL34241, Voluntary Carbon Offsets: Overview and Assessment .

Proposals to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases often include the use of forestry and agricultural practices and lands for carbon sequestration. However, uncertainty about the accuracy of measuring carbon from these activities has led some to question this potential. Basic approaches for measuring forest and agricultural carbon include on-site measurement; indirect measurement from off-site tools; and estimation using models or inferences. Because of challenges associated with balancing the cost and accuracy of these measurement tools, any practicable system for measuring forest and agricultural carbon might require a mix of these approaches.

Section 2 would have addressed the problem of regional shortages of petroleum and natural gas products by amending the Clayton Act to make it unlawful for "any person to refuse to sell, or to export or divert, existing supplies of petroleum, gasoline, or other fuel derived from petroleum or natural gas with the primary intention of increasing prices or creating a shortage in a geographic market." The provision set out the circumstances that were to be considered by a court in determining whether the actions made unlawful were done "with the intent of increasing prices or creating a shortage...." Sections 3-5 would have imposed review, reporting, and study requirements on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Attorney General, and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Section 3 would have required the FTC and the Attorney General, to (1) conduct a study of section 7 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C. § 18), the so-called antimerger section, in order to determine "whether [that] section ... should be amended to modify how that section applies to persons engaged in the business of exploring for, producing, refining ... or otherwise making available petroleum, gasoline or other fuel derived from petroleum or natural gas"; and, within 270 days of S. 2557 's enactment, (2) report to Congress the study's findings, "including recommendations and proposed legislation, if any." The report was to be based, in addition to the parties' own study of section 7 of the Clayton Act, on the Section 4-required GAO study. Section 4 would have required the GAO, within 180 days of enactment, to evaluate "the effectiveness of divestitures required under" consent decrees entered into within the past 10 years between either the FTC or the Department of Justice and "persons engaged in" the same segments of the petroleum or natural gas industries as those subject to study (as noted above) by the Attorney General and the FTC. The GAO study, was to have been submitted to Congress, the Attorney General, and the FTC, within 180 days of S. 2557 's enactment. Further, section 4 of S. 2557 would have required that the Attorney General and the FTC, in addition to reviewing the report for purposes of their report to Congress mandated in section 3(b) of S. 2557 , also "consider whether any additional action is required to restore competition or prevent a substantial lessening of competition occurring as a result of any transaction that was the subject of the [GAO] study...." Section 5 would have required the Attorney General and the FTC to establish a "joint federal-State task force" with any state Attorney General who chose to participate, to investigate information sharing (including [that facilitated] through the use of exchange agreements and commercial information services), among persons [described in the mandates for the above-cited studies, and] (including any person about which the Energy Information Administration collects financial and operating data as part of its Financial Reporting System). Section 6 would have created the "No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2006" ("NOPEC") as an amendment to the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1-7) by inserting new provisions to make illegal, and an antitrust violation, actions by "any foreign state, or any instrumentality or agent of any foreign state, … to act collectively or in combination with any other foreign state, ... or any other person, whether by cartel or any other association or form of cooperation or joint action—" to engage in certain, specified actions with respect to natural gas or petroleum products, including those to (1) limit either "the production or distribution," (2) "set or maintain the price of," or (3) "take any [other] action in restraint of trade"— if any of those actions "has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on" U.S. commerce. Pursuant to proposed section 8(c) of the Sherman Act, the doctrine of sovereign immunity would not protect any foreign state from "the jurisdiction or judgments" of U.S. courts in any action brought on account of conduct alleged to be in violation of the foregoing prohibitions. Proposed section 8(d) would prohibit use of the act of state doctrine as a court's rationale for "declin[ing] ... to make a determination on the merits in an action brought under this section." The final provisions of section 6 would add language to 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a), which lists exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, to clarify that sovereign immunity does not apply in instances "in which [an] action is brought under section 8 of the Sherman Act." Technical matters concerning references to existing statutes or to statutory provisions (several of which have been renumbered in the past several years, including editorial renumbering after enactment) are best addressed by the Senate Office of Legislative Counsel. Similarly, that Office might also best provide U.S. Code citations to accompany the statutory section references so as to clarify exactly which provisions are being named, amended, or added. In addition, that Office's familiarity with legislative drafting considerations should enable them to suggest the most advantageous placement of proposed provisions. Making it unlawful for "any person to refuse to sell, export or divert, existing supplies of petroleum..." would likely be challenged by those who would note that the courts, beginning with the Supreme Court's 1919 decision in United States v. Colgate & Co., have long acknowledged the right of an individual businessman to do business, or not, with whomever he likes, and on whatever terms and conditions he deems acceptable: In the absence of any purpose to create or maintain a monopoly, the [Sherman] act does not restrict the long recognized right of trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal; and, of course, he may announce in advance the circumstances under which he will refuse to sell. Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits "contracts or conspiracies in restraint of trade" —in other words, collusion. Section 2 prohibits "monopolization" or "attempted monopolization"—which may entail unilateral, "guilty behavior" by either a would-be monopolist in his quest to become one (attempt), or an existing monopolist acting to maintain his monopoly position by other than the "superior product, business acumen, or historic accident" which served to create the monopoly in the first place. Presently, absent either the collusion (joint action) made unlawful by section 1 of the Sherman Act, or the "guilty behavior" which might constitute violation of section 2, there is not any statutory constraint on unilateral business decisions, and the courts have been reluctant to infer one. The Federal Trade Commission has released two reports—in July 2005 and March 2006 - concerning the gasoline industry. The former "analyze[d] in detail the multiple factors that affect supply and demand—and thus prices for gasoline ...; the latter, an interim report, was produced in response to Congressional directives, and outlines the Commission's rationale and methods for combining the mandated studies. Tasking the FTC with the study and reporting requirements contained in sections 3 and 4, in addition to those contained in other legislation, might result in the Commission's inability to conduct timely enforcement activities and/or continue its program to monitor "weekly average gasoline and diesel prices in 360 cities nationwide to find and, if necessary, recommend appropriate action on pricing anomalies that might indicate anticompetitive conduct." Provisions similar to the NOPEC provisions of S. 2557 , an apparent attempt to nullify the courts' refusal, in 1979, to sanction a suit against OPEC by the International Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), would not necessarily accomplish the presumed goal of precluding OPEC's influence on gasoline prices. First, a provision that would add language to the Sherman Act to make certain actions unlawful under that statute, may be redundant: those actions taken abroad by a non-sovereign that have the requisite effect on U.S. commerce are already reachable under the U.S. antitrust laws, even absent specific statutory authorization. As stated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1945: We should not impute to Congress an intent to punish all whom its courts can catch, for conduct which has no consequences within the United States. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 213 U.S. 347, 357, .... On the other hand , it is settled law ... that any state may impose liabilities, even upon persons not within its allegiance, for conduct outside its borders that has consequences within its borders which the state reprehends; and these liabilities other states will ordinarily recognize. In addition, the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) of 1976 contains a commercial activity exception to the general rule that a foreign state is protected from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. There is no sovereign immunity, according to existing statute (28 U.S.C.A. § 1605(a)(2)), in circumstances in which the [judicial] action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States; S. 2557 , for example, would have stated specifically that actions brought pursuant to the Sherman Act do not trigger sovereign immunity, but the provision did not define OPEC as a "country" for purposes of the act; such a lack could present a problem for two reasons. The S. 2557 language did not, seemingly, add meaningfully to the general "commercial activity exception" language of FSIA. The IAM's unsuccessful attempt to use FSIA to sue OPEC for, inter alia , price fixing under the antitrust laws is a useful illustration; it foundered for reasons that do not seem to have been remedied by the bill's proposed statutory provisions. The district court found that because OPEC was not a country, FSIA was inapplicable, and no action could be brought against OPEC under it. Further, and perhaps more important, the court found that the "indirect purchaser" doctrine denied the IAM standing to sue (477 F.Supp. at 560-61). Congress has not granted indirect purchasers standing under the federal antitrust laws, although several states have done so with regard to their own antitrust laws. Although proposed section 8(e) of the Sherman Act would allow suits to be brought by the Attorney General, it would not alter a current prohibition on private actions—the indirect purchaser doctrine. Affirming the district court's dismissal of the IAM suit, the appeals court reasoning was based on non-FSIA, non-antitrust factors, and couched in language that does specifically mention the act of state doctrine, indicating the questionable effectiveness of proposed section 8(d)'s direction that courts not "decline, based on the act of state doctrine, to make a determination on the merits in an action brought on this section." While the case is formulated as an anti-trust action, the granting of any relief would in effect amount to an order from a domestic court instructing a foreign sovereign to alter its chosen means of allocating and profiting from its own valuable natural resources. On the other hand, should the court hold that OPEC's actions are [antitrust] legal this "would greatly strengthen the bargaining hand" of the OPEC nations in the event that Congress or the executive chooses to condemn OPEC's actions.

This report addresses one of several approaches to the issue of rising gasoline prices put forward in the 109th Congress. S. 2557 was introduced on April 6, 2006, by Senator Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, reported by that committee on April 27, but was not scheduled for floor action. The bill sought to amend the antitrust laws to accomplish four things. Mitigate regional shortages of petroleum and natural gas products Mandate federal agency reviews to (a) fine-tune the statutory provision most concerned with mergers (Section 7 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 18, which makes unlawful any merger or acquisition in or affecting commerce that may "substantially" lessen competition or "tend to create a monopoly" in any line or commerce in any section of the country) so that it would be particularly applicable to mergers in the oil and gas industry, and (b) examine the effectiveness of the divestiture remedy for mergers in that industry Establish a federal-state task force to examine information-sharing in the oil and gas industries; and Make U.S. antitrust law applicable to certain actions carried out by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).

The atmosphere in the jury room in Bill Cosby's sexual assault trial was "tense -- very, very tense" during the 52 hours of deliberations before a hung jury was declared and the jurors had trouble coming to a consensus on the charges, a former juror told CBS News. CBS News' Nicole Sganga and Wendy Krantz spoke to a male juror on the condition of anonymity. A long-time resident of the Philadelphia area, the juror is married and a former Marine. He said prosecutors "really screwed it up when it came to the charges" against Cosby. Cosby was charged with three counts of aggravated indecent assault, each one punishable by up to 10 years behind bars. The juror said they were split on all three charges, but the vote count on each charge changed. "There were lots of tears. Lots of emotions," the juror said about the deliberations. The juror emphasized the jurors had a lot of problems with "the way [the charges] were written." The juror said they frequently debated the "meaning of words" in the charges. For example, he said Cosby "did it. He admits that. But was he reckless?" Additionally, the juror said that victim Andrea Constand was "impaired, but severely?" The juror said the words printed on the charges were "unreasonable doubt," which the jury debated "back and forth half a day on that." The jurors went back to the judge on Friday to clarify what "unreasonable doubt" meant, but the juror said he still doesn't know what it means. The jury was comprised of seven men and five women, and two jurors were African American. The juror told CBS News that they were not split down gender lines or age lines. He said the jurors' ages ranged from 21 to 86. AP Cosby was accused of drugging and sexually assaulting Constand in 2004 in his suburban Philadelphia home. Some 60 women have come forward to say Cosby sexually violated them, all but destroying his nice-guy image, but the statute of limitations for prosecution had run out in nearly every case. Constand's case is the only one in which Cosby has been charged. The juror noted that there were "40 to 60 women" who came forward with allegations against Cosby. "I don't think he ever actually went on to rape any of them." "I don't understand if you're assaulted why you wait one year or 40 years," he said. Constand sued Cosby after prosecutors in 2005 declined to press charges. Cosby testified over a decade ago as part of that lawsuit, eventually settling with her for an undisclosed sum. Cosby didn't testify at the six-day trial. But jurors still heard plenty from him as prosecutors read them excerpts from his 2005 police statement and civil deposition. The juror noted Cosby's deposition, saying he was surprised "how much [Cosby] admitted to." "He didn't deny anything," the juror said. "It happened. He admitted to it." Constand, 44, testified last week that Cosby gave her three blue pills and then penetrated her with his fingers against her will as she lay paralyzed and half-conscious. She denied they had a romantic relationship and said she had rebuffed previous advances from him. Defense lawyer Brian McMonagle, however, attacked what he said were inconsistencies in Constand's story, disputed that Constand was incapacitated, and made the case that she and Cosby, who was married, had a romantic relationship. McMonagle said Cosby gave her the cold and allergy medicine Benadryl only after she complained she couldn't sleep. The sole witness for the defense was the detective who led the 2005 investigation, Richard Schaffer, who previously took the stand during the prosecution's case. He was questioned for six minutes. The juror said it would be a "waste of money" to prosecute again, saying that Cosby "to go further would be a shame. This man -- this has already cost him his career ... He's paid." ||||| How a Delco man sought to use stolen U.S. military weapons to wage war in Liberia How a Delco man sought to use stolen U.S. military weapons to wage war in Liberia Jun 28 Gov. Murphy condemns Trenton arts festival shooting and vows to bring those responsible for 'the lawlessness' to justice Gov. Murphy condemns Trenton arts festival shooting and vows to bring those responsible for 'the lawlessness' to justice Jun 18 Laura McCrystal covers everything about taxes, government revenue, and how such policies impact people in Philadelphia and beyond. She previously covered news in Montgomery County, including Bill Cosby's trial. Gianna Constand, left, and her daughter Andrea Constand, right, walk toward the courtroom inside the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, PA on June 12, 2017. Cosby is on trial for sexual assault. Both women testified in the trial. PITTSBURGH — A juror in Bill Cosby’s sex assault trial said Thursday that he did not believe the testimony of accuser Andrea Constand because she willingly went alone to the entertainer’s home and brought him gifts on more than one occasion. “She was well-coached,” he said of Constand’s two days on the witness stand. “Let’s face it: She went up to his house with a bare midriff and incense and bath salts. What the heck?” The juror, who spoke with the Inquirer and Daily News at his home on the condition of anonymity, would not say whether he wanted to convict or acquit Cosby. But he said the seven men and five women on the panel were nearly evenly split after 52 hours of deliberations, a deadlock that prompted Montgomery County Judge Steven T. O’Neill to declare a mistrial on Saturday. He also said Cosby had already “paid dearly” for the allegations and should not be retried. The juror was the second to offer a window into the deliberation room of the case, and his account appeared to contradict the first. That juror told ABC News on Monday that 10 of the 12 panel members were prepared to find Cosby guilty on two of the three counts against him. The juror who discussed the case Thursday said that at one point deep into deliberations, there had been a 10-2 vote to convict Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting Constand, but that three panel members later changed their votes and wanted to acquit him. Votes were split “up the middle: young and old, black and white, men and women,” he said. He said he thought the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict because the language describing the charges – three counts of aggravated indecent assault stemming from an incident in 2004 – was confusing and “too legal.” Jurors struggled over terms such as reckless and severely impaired while debating whether Cosby drugged and molested Constand without her consent, he said. Some of their requests to review testimony during deliberations, he said, were based on desire to find those words in the evidence. “We were trying to match the testimony up with the charges,” he said. “Everybody’s interpretation of those words was something different.” He spoke a day after O’Neill, acting on a petition from news outlets including the Inquirer and Daily News, released the names of the 12 jurors and six alternates who were chosen in Allegheny County and sequestered for the trial near Norristown. Most have since refused to comment on the case or their deliberations, following a directive the judge gave before discharging them Saturday and repeated in a ruling this week. Though the juror who spoke Thursday did not reveal his vote, he did make clear his skepticism about Constand, the 44-year-old accuser from Toronto who said she viewed Cosby only as a friend and mentor and never sought a romantic relationship. Specifically, the juror said, she should have gone to Cosby’s home only if she was “dressed properly and left the incense in the store,” referring to a gift that she brought him when the two formed a friendship before the alleged assault. In a deposition read to jurors, Cosby detailed a sexual liaison he had with Constand when she showed up at his home with her midriff exposed, some time before the night of the alleged assault. Constand denies that encounter ever occurred.​ Still, the juror’s impression seemed to echo the trial defense Cosby’s lawyers sought to present: that Constand, then a 31-year-old Temple University employee, was in or seeking a romantic relationship with the then-66-year-old entertainer and world-famous university trustee. He said he found Cosby’s own words in 2005, to police and in the deposition for a civil lawsuit filed by Constand, convincing. In that deposition and since, Cosby maintained any sexual contact was consensual. “He was extremely honest. He admitted to things,” the juror said. He also saw Constand’s mother as the driving force behind her decision to report the alleged assault to police a year after it occurred. “It was her mother who forced all this,” the panel member said. He also said the jury did not let the allegations of the more than 60 women who have come forward to accuse Cosby of sexual misconduct influence its decision. He said he believed many of those women fabricated their claims. “This is ridiculous, unbelievable,” he said. “I think more than half jumped on the bandwagon.” Nor did he feel that he or others were influenced by outside information or by Cosby’s celebrity. The juror, one of the older members on the panel, said he used to watch The Cosby Show occasionally but was never an avid fan. During the trial, he said, he saw not a superstar but a tired old man. “I think he was weathered,” he said. “I wondered if he was going to be able to make it through the whole trial the first couple of days, but he did.” Jurors did not yell or argue during deliberations, he said, but the room was tense, once draped in prolonged silence. “There may have been one 10-minute break of total silence, and then the question came up: Did the courthouse have a chapel?” he said. There was no chapel, and deliberations continued. But in the end, he said, “the jury was stalled on everything.” Cosby, 79, “has paid dearly” already for the allegations against him, the juror said, because his career has been destroyed. He said he did not think District Attorney Kevin R. Steele should pursue a retrial, as he has said he will do. “They should’ve left it closed. … There wasn’t enough evidence to move the case forward,” he said, echoing Cosby’s lawyer’s arguments about the 2005 decision by then-District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr. to close the case without charging Cosby. Now, he said, there was nothing to consider beyond decade-old evidence. “No stained garment, no smoking gun, nothing,” the juror said. The juror said most members of the jury exchanged contact information when it ended and voiced a desire to keep in touch. But he said he would not keep in contact with his peers. And he won’t pay attention if there is a second trial, he said. “It would be a waste of Montgomery [County] money with the money it cost,” he said. He said he and the other jurors were treated well during their stay in Norristown. Asked whether he enjoyed the experience, the juror said simply, “I’m glad I did my civic duty.” ||||| (CNN) The jury in Bill Cosby's assault trial agreed on many points in the case and accepted his accuser's testimony as true, but they remained at a hopeless deadlock because some were confused by how the charges were worded, a juror told CNN. Parts of testimony from key witness Andrea Constand against Cosby were "unbelievable," the juror said, but her contradicting memory of dates in the case didn't have a big impact on the jury split. "It didn't matter if it was January or March, or what the dates were, the fact that it happened, we accepted that. We accepted all that," said the juror, who spoke to CNN on condition of anonymity. "But we could not accept the way the charges were written." Still, the juror had questions about her version of events. "It's questionable that she asked for help from Mr. Cosby and she shows up wearing a bare midriff and she has incense with her and bath salts with her, and no matter who gave her the bath salts, that's questionable," he said. The juror's comments come less than a week after a judge declared a mistrial in the case . The comedian, 79, faced three charges of aggravated indecent assault, but jurors could not come to a unanimous verdict on any of the three counts. Prosecutors said Cosby drugged and assaulted Constand, the former director of operations for Temple University's women's basketball team, at his Pennsylvania home in January 2004. Defense attorneys argued that the sexual activity was part of a consensual relationship between the two. Judge Steven O'Neill released the names of jurors to the media earlier this week, but kept the jury deliberations confidential, according to a court document released Wednesday. The document states that a disclosure of anything said or done during deliberations "would have a chilling effect upon future jurors in this case and their ability to deliberate freely." Inside the jury room Amid over 52 hours of testimony, the jury remained deeply divided, with votes largely stuck at 5 to 7 or 7 to 5. At one point, they reached a 10-2 vote to convict , but three jurors then quickly changed their votes, he said. The jury was bused from Allegheny County, near Pittsburgh, to Montgomery County and sequestered in hotels for the duration of the trial . The panel consisted of four white women, six white men, one black woman and one black man. But the splits were across every demographic, the juror said. "From my point of view it was right up the middle: Young and old, black and white, men and women," the juror said. He suspected that the case against Cosby, which centered on events that allegedly occurred 13 years ago, was brought now because of "politics." "We had no real new evidence," he said. "There was no soiled clothing, no smoking gun, no new evidence." The sticking point, the juror said, was the language of the charges. "They were legally written with a lot of different words than what was said out in the courtroom, and it caused the jurors to keep going back to the judge looking where these words were like "reckless" and "unconscious" and "severely impaired" and "unreasonable doubt." Now we had out there reasonable doubt, but not unreasonable doubt. What is unreasonable doubt? We spent a lot of time trying to figure these words out that were in these charges, which made them so much more severe than what all the testimony, or I heard closing arguments was. We never heard those words, and that's where the problem was." "'Reckless' was one word that we spent a whole day on trying to figure out whether he was reckless going upstairs and getting pills," the juror said. "Just, you couldn't convict him on the wording of the charges. And that's where we argued back and forth. What meant one thing to one person and something to another, and after they slept on it they changed their minds." The case against Cosby Constand initially told police about the alleged assault in January 2005, but the district attorney at the time declined to press charges, citing insufficient evidence. A new district attorney, Kevin Steele, brought charges against Cosby in 2015, months after a judge unsealed Cosby's deposition in a civil lawsuit in which he admitted to procuring powerful drugs to give to women with whom he wanted to have sex. Prosecutors have said they plan to re-try Cosby again within the year. But the juror who spoke to CNN said that would just be a "waste of money" because he thought another jury would have the same problem coming to a conclusion as well. "If they handle the case the same way they did this, and there's no new evidence... and it'll probably be another year or two until they can get this thing up. It'd be a waste of money," he said. The juror also detailed the "royal" treatment they received while sequestered for the trial, including a two-week stay in hotel suites, private dinners at nice restaurants, and escorted trips everywhere they went. Still, the jury experience was exhausting and frustrating, and left multiple people in tears, he said. To illustrate that point, he said that on the first smoke break in jury deliberations, three jurors went out for a cigarette. By the final smoke break, after almost a week of tense deliberations, seven people ventured out, including one juror who had been off cigarettes for 21 years. "That's tense," he said. ||||| FILE - In this June 17, 2017 file photo, Bill Cosby arrives for his sexual assault trial at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, Pa. Cosby will organize a series of town hall meetings to help... (Associated Press) FILE - In this June 17, 2017 file photo, Bill Cosby arrives for his sexual assault trial at the Montgomery County Courthouse in Norristown, Pa. Cosby will organize a series of town hall meetings to help educate young people about problems their misbehavior could create, a spokesman for Cosby said Thursday,... (Associated Press) PITTSBURGH (AP) — A juror in Bill Cosby's sexual assault trial said Thursday that some jurors were concerned that prosecutors waited 10 years to charge him, expressing suspicion that politics had played a role in the case. The juror told The Associated Press that the panel was almost evenly split in its deliberations, with a similar number of jurors wanting to convict the 79-year-old entertainer as acquit him on charges he drugged and molested a woman at his Philadelphia-area home in 2004. He was the second juror to speak out after the jury deadlocked in the case. A mistrial was declared Saturday after 52 hours of deliberations. Prosecutors plan to put Cosby on trial again. The juror who spoke to the AP questioned the long delay in bringing charges against the TV star, suggesting that "no new evidence from '05 to now has showed up, no stained clothing, no smoking gun, nothing." In reality, prosecutors reopened the investigation in 2015 after the public release of a deposition that Cosby gave in 2005 and 2006 as part of accuser Andrea Constand's lawsuit against him — testimony that hadn't been offered when another district attorney passed on the case in early 2005. Prosecutors used Cosby's deposition as evidence at the criminal trial. The juror spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive deliberations. Constand, a former Temple University employee, told jurors Cosby gave her pills that made her woozy and then penetrated her with his fingers as she lay paralyzed on a couch, unable to tell him to stop. Cosby has said his encounter with Constand was consensual. Constand, now 44, initially went to police about a year after she said Cosby assaulted her, but a prosecutor declared her case too weak to bring charges. A decade later, another district attorney revived the probe after excerpts from Cosby's lurid deposition about drugs and sex became public and dozens of women came forward also alleging sexual assault by him. Cosby was charged shortly before the statute of limitations was set to expire. The juror who spoke to the AP said other jurors expressed the view in the deliberating room that "politics was involved." "I think they created this whole thing, a case that was settled in '05, and we had to bring it up again in '17 with no new evidence," the juror said. The juror declined to reveal whether he wanted to convict or acquit Cosby but left little doubt about how he felt. He said he was suspicious of Constand's story, questioning why she waited to tell authorities and suggesting the clothing she wore to Cosby's house had influenced his view of their encounter. "When you ask for help on your resume, on your resignation letter, which she did, and he, Mr. Cosby, invites her to his home and she arrives in a bare midriff with incense and bath salts, that's a question," said the juror, appearing to lump several meetings between Cosby and Constand into one. Cosby, he said, seemed more truthful in his deposition, in which he acknowledged giving pills to Constand before their sexual encounter. The comedian also described how, in the 1970s, he obtained prescriptions for the powerful sedative quaaludes for the purpose of offering them to women with whom he wanted to have sex. "He openly admitted that what he gave 'em, he gave 'em pills," the juror said. "He almost incriminated himself. It was very, very honest from his side. You could believe from his testimony what he did, but not from her." The juror characterized the deliberations as tense. "Crying by men and by women and more than one," he said. "And the tears came towards the end, it was so tense." Another juror told ABC News on Wednesday that jurors had voted 10-2 to convict Cosby on two of three counts against him. The juror who spoke to the AP confirmed that vote but said three people then changed their minds. He said the panel was typically more "evenly split" and "up the middle." Cosby is eager to get back to work following the mistrial, a spokesman said. A series of town halls is planned to help educate young people about the problems their misbehavior could create, spokesman Andrew Wyatt told a Birmingham, Alabama, TV station. The issue "is bigger than Bill Cosby" and can affect any young person, especially young athletes, Wyatt said, without elaborating. The AP does not typically identify people who say they are victims of sexual assault unless they grant permission, which Constand has done. ___ Rubinkam reported from northeastern Pennsylvania. ___ For more on Cosby, including stories about the trial, historical photos, videos and an audio series exploring the case, visit http://www.apnews.com/tag/CosbyonTrial .

Another Bill Cosby juror has spoken out anonymously, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer that votes were split "up the middle: young and old, black and white, men and women." He blamed that on the language to describe the charges being confusing and "too legal," saying jurors debated terms like "reckless" and "severely impaired." When they asked to review testimony during deliberations, "we were trying to match the testimony up with the charges," he said. "Everybody’s interpretation of those words was something different." As for his own vote, he wouldn't say what it was, but he did mention he did not find accuser Andrea Constand believable. "She was well-coached," he said of Constand’s testimony. "Let’s face it: She went up to his house with a bare midriff and incense and bath salts. What the heck?" He added that she should have gone to Cosby's home "dressed properly" and she should have "left the incense [a gift for Cosby] in the store." CNN, CBS, and the AP also have new interviews with an anonymous juror or jurors, and while it's not clear whether it's the same one, the sentiments expressed were similar. "When you ask for help on your resume, on your resignation letter, which she did, and he, Mr. Cosby, invites her to his home and she arrives in a bare midriff with incense and bath salts, that's a question," said the juror the AP spoke to. (Cosby plans to lecture on sex assault.)

FHA was established in 1934 under the National Housing Act (P.L. 73-479). The primary purpose of FHA’s Fund is to insure private lenders against losses on mortgages that finance purchases of one to four housing units. There are two primary sources and three uses of cash for the Fund. The two sources of cash are income from mortgagees’ premiums and net proceeds from the sale of foreclosed properties. The three uses of cash are (1) payments associated with claims on foreclosed properties, (2) refunds of premiums on mortgages that are prepaid, and (3) administrative expenses for management of the program. To cover losses, FHA deposits insurance premiums from participating borrowers in the Fund. According to 12 U.S.C. 1711, the Fund must meet or endeavor to meet statutory capital ratio requirements; that is, it must contain sufficient reserves and funding to cover estimated future losses resulting from the payment of claims on defaulted mortgages and administrative costs. A determination of reserves and funding to cover estimated future losses requires the use of an accrual basis of accounting. The accrual concept is particularly important for an entity such as FHA (or any insurance enterprise) because the actual payout or collection of cash may precede or follow the event that gave rise to the cash transaction by a substantial time period. Thus, a favorable cash position, or positive cash flow, at any given point may not reflect the true financial position of the entity. The Fund remained relatively healthy until the 1980s, when losses were substantial primarily because foreclosure rates were high in economically stressed regions, particularly in the Rocky Mountain and Southwest regions. For example, in fiscal year 1988, the Fund lost $1.4 billion. If the Fund were to be exhausted, the U.S. Treasury would have to directly cover lenders’ claims and administrative costs. Reforms designed to restore financial stability to the Fund and to correct problems in loan origination and property disposition were initiated by the Congress and HUD. The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-508), enacted in November 1990, contained reforms to FHA’s single-family mortgage insurance program designed to place the Fund on a financially sound basis. The legislation, among other things, required FHA borrowers to pay more in insurance premiums over the life of the loans by adding a risk-based annual premium to the one-time, up-front premium. It effectively raised the present value of the insurance premium from 3.8 percent of the loan amount to from 5.5 to 6.8 percent, depending on the amount of the down payment made. It accomplished this change via two actions: lowering the up-front premium from 3.8 to 2.25 percent of the loan amount over a 4-year transitional period and, during the same period, phasing in a new annual premium of 0.5 percent of the loan balances. Those borrowers who make higher down payments pay the annual premium for a shorter period. Other changes made by the legislation in response to the Fund’s financial problems included (1) limiting the loan-to-value ratio to a maximum of 97.75 percent of the value of homes appraised at more than $50,000 and (2) effectively suspending the payment of distributive shares (distribution of excess revenues to mortgagors) until the Fund is financially sound. The legislation also required the Secretary of HUD to endeavor to ensure a capital ratio of 2 percent by November 2000 and maintain that ratio or a higher one at all times thereafter. The act defined the capital ratio as the ratio of the Fund’s capital, or economic net worth, to its unamortized insurance-in-force. We and HUD’s Inspector General have been reporting on FHA’s management problems since the early 1980s. We have concluded in previous testimonies and reports that in addition to economic factors, poor program management and waste, fraud, and abuse contributed to the losses sustained by FHA’s Fund. For example, FHA did not have accounting data and internal controls in place to reconcile funds from the sales of government-owned properties with deposits to the U.S. Treasury. As a result, private real estate agents were able to steal millions of dollars by simply retaining the proceeds from the sale of FHA-owned properties rather than transferring the funds to the Treasury. HUD’s efforts to improve the financial stability of the Fund have consisted of initiating several audits of the Fund; modifying the program, primarily to tighten controls and improve monitoring; and developing automated systems. For example, to reduce problems with loan origination, HUD tightened its screening of applicants, took steps to improve how it targets its efforts to monitor lenders, and strengthened appraisal requirements. To reduce problems with property disposition, HUD, among other things, tightened controls over closing agents and area management brokers and took actions to improve property pricing and automated accounting and management systems. Any success achieved by HUD and FHA in reducing FHA’s losses through better management will improve the Fund’s financial health. The Fund had amortized insurance-in-force valued at about $305 billion as of September 30, 1994. To estimate the economic net worth of, and resulting capital ratio for, these loans over their life of up to 30 years, we developed an economic model of FHA’s home loan program. We generated three different economic scenarios, assuming for each a different rate of appreciation in house prices over the next 30 years. The actual economic net worth and capital ratios of the Fund and the validity of our estimates will depend on a number of future economic factors, including the rate of appreciation in house prices over the life of the FHA mortgages of up to 30 years. This factor is significant because, as house prices rise, the borrowers’ equity increases and the probability of defaults and subsequent foreclosures decreases. The house price appreciation, interest, and unemployment rates that we used were based on forecasts from DRI/McGraw-Hill, a private economic forecasting company. Table 1 presents our estimates of the economic net worth and resulting capital ratios for the FHA mortgage loans outstanding as of September 30, 1994, under each of our three economic scenarios. Although future rates of appreciation in house prices are uncertain, to be conservative, we placed greater reliance on our mid-range baseline economic scenario because it assumes slightly lower house price appreciation rates (1 percent annually) than the rates forecasted by DRI/McGraw-Hill. Under this scenario, we estimate that the Fund had an economic net worth of about $6.1 billion and resulting capital ratio of 2.02 percent at the end of fiscal year 1994. This estimate represents an improvement of about $8.8 billion from the lowest level reached by the Fund—a negative $2.7 billion economic net worth estimated by Price Waterhouse at the end of fiscal year 1990. Under our low-case economic scenario, which assumes house price rates of appreciation of 2 percentage points lower than our baseline and a higher unemployment rate, we estimate that the Fund’s economic net worth would be $3 billion. Conversely, under our high-case economic scenario, which assumes house price rates of appreciation of 2 percentage points higher than our baseline, we estimated that the Fund’s economic net worth would be $7.4 billion. We estimate that the economic net worth of the Fund increased under our baseline scenario by about $1.2 billion during fiscal year 1994, from $4.9 billion at the end of fiscal year 1993 to $6.1 billion at the end of fiscal year 1994. This increase occurred even though large numbers of FHA borrowers continued to lower their interest rates during fiscal year 1994 by refinancing their mortgages conventionally, which resulted in partial refunds of their insurance premiums. A detailed discussion of factors contributing to the $1.2 billion growth in the Fund’s economic net worth during fiscal year 1994 appears in appendix I. We estimate that FHA’s Fund, with a capital reserve ratio of 2.02 percent of the amortized insurance-in-force, surpassed the November 2000 capital ratio target of 2 percent during fiscal year 1994. Therefore, the Fund has sufficient capital reserves to meet the capital ratio target. Whether the Fund will be able to maintain the capital ratio will depend on a number of factors that will prevail in the future. These factors include (1) economic conditions, (2) changes to the program that affect the financial condition of the Fund, (3) the performance of FHA’s streamlined refinanced loans, and (4) risks associated with the demand for FHA’s loans. We did not attempt to project the economic net worth and capital ratio of the Fund to fiscal year 2000 because these factors are likely to change. As shown in table 1, our estimates are sensitive to future economic conditions, particularly house price appreciation rates. The Fund will not perform as well if the economic conditions that prevail over the next 30 years replicate those we assumed in our low-case economic scenario. Our estimate of the Fund’s economic net worth for our low-case economic scenario is about $3 billion, or 49 percent, less than that of our baseline scenario. Under economic scenarios having generally favorable economic conditions but lower rates of appreciation in house prices, such as our low-case economic scenario, FHA’s Fund would likely experience higher claims. As a result, its economic net worth would decline. FHA’s support of single-family mortgages could be altered by changes to the program proposed by the administration and others. The administration’s proposals, which are part of its efforts to “reinvent government,” would recreate FHA as a wholly owned government corporation. As such, the single-family insurance operations of a new FHA would be, among other things, free to introduce new product lines, enter into risk-sharing arrangements with private and public entities, and operate under more flexible personnel and procurement practices. Other proposals would limit FHA’s participation in single-family mortgages to low-income individuals and first-time home buyers only. Specific information on the customers that a new FHA single-family mortgage insurance program would serve, the relationship that a new program would establish with partners in the housing market, and the mix of products that a new program would offer is not yet known. The extent to which this or some other restructuring alternative is implemented will have to be decided by the Congress through the legislative and appropriation processes. However, no matter what form FHA takes, these changes will likely have an affect on the Fund’s economic net worth. The substantial refinancing of FHA’s loans that occurred during fiscal years 1992 through 1994 has created a growing class of FHA borrowers whose future behavior is more difficult to predict than the typical FHA borrower’s. FHA’s streamlined refinanced mortgages accounted for about 40 percent of the loans originated by FHA in fiscal year 1994. About 19 percent of FHA’s amortized insurance-in-force at the end of fiscal year 1994 consisted of streamlined refinanced mortgages for which there is little experience with the tendency for such loans to be foreclosed and/or prepaid. Because FHA insured properties for which mortgages were streamlined refinanced were not required to be appraised, the initial loan-to-value ratio of these loans—a key predictor of the probability of foreclosure—is unknown. The impact of these loans on the financial health of the Fund is probably positive, since they represent preexisting FHA business whose risk has been reduced through lower interest rates and lower monthly payments. However, the lack of experience with these loans increases the uncertainty associated with their expected foreclosure rates. This refinancing activity also raises questions about the credit quality of the loans that were not refinanced despite the fall in interest rates. Since, under these circumstances, most borrowers who could refinance would find it to their financial advantage to do so, those borrowers who did not refinance may not have been able to qualify for a new loan. This suggests that future foreclosure rates on these loans, which originated in previous years when interest rates were higher, may be greater than we have forecasted. As additional years of experience with these loans are gained, their effect on the Fund’s financial status will become more certain. New developments in the private mortgage insurance market may increase the average risk of future FHA-insured loans. Home buyers’ demand for FHA-insured loans depends, in part, on the alternatives available to them. Some private mortgage insurers recently began offering mortgage insurance coverage on conventional mortgages with a 97-percent loan-to-value ratio, which brings their terms closer to FHA’s 97.75-percent loan-to-value ratio on loans for properties exceeding $50,000 in appraised value. While potential home buyers may consider many other factors when financing their mortgages, such as the fact that FHA will finance the up-front premium as part of the mortgage loan, this action by private mortgage insurers could reduce the demand for FHA-insured mortgage loans. In particular, by lowering the required down payment, private mortgage insurers may attract some borrowers who might have otherwise insured their mortgages with FHA. If by selectively offering these low down payment loans, private mortgage insurers are able to attract FHA’s lower-risk borrowers, such as borrowers with better-than-average credit histories or payment-to-income ratios, new FHA loans may become more risky on average. If this effect is substantial, the economic net worth of the Fund may be adversely affected, and it may be more difficult for the Fund to maintain a 2-percent capital ratio. Price Waterhouse has performed annual actuarial reviews of the Fund for FHA since 1990. In its most recent report dated May 8, 1995, Price Waterhouse reported that the Fund had an economic net worth of about $6.68 billion—compared with our baseline estimate of $6.1 billion—and a resulting capital ratio of 1.99 percent of the unamortized insurance-in-force as of the end of fiscal year 1994—compared with our baseline estimate of 2.02 percent of the amortized insurance-in-force. It also reported that the Fund will meet the fiscal year 2000 capital ratio of 2 percent of the unamortized insurance-in-force with a capital ratio of 3.03 percent and that the economic net worth of the Fund will be about $15.2 billion. These projections are based on forecasted economic assumptions and the assumption that FHA does not change its premium and refund policies. Although our estimate of the Fund’s economic net worth is lower than Price Waterhouse’s estimate by about 9 percent, in view of the uncertainty associated with any forecast of the performance of the Fund’s loans over their life of up to 30 years, these estimates can be considered roughly equivalent. Each of us used somewhat different modeling techniques and assumptions that account for some of the $580 million difference. However, in general, our model and Price Waterhouse’s rely on many of the same key factors, such as the rates of appreciation in house prices and changes in mortgage interest rates, as important determinants of mortgage terminations and the economic net worth of the Fund. However, our estimate of the Fund’s capital ratio is slightly higher than Price Waterhouse’s estimate—2.02 percent compared with 1.99 percent—even though our estimate of economic net worth is lower that Price Waterhouse’s. The primary reason for this is the fact that we used a lower insurance-in-force amount ($305 billion of amortized insurance-in-force) to calculate the capital ratio than Price Waterhouse did ($335 billion of unamortized insurance-in-force). As discussed previously, the act defined the capital ratio as the ratio of the Fund’s economic net worth to its unamortized insurance-in-force. However, the act’s definition of unamortized insurance-in-force as the remaining obligation on outstanding mortgages is commonly understood to be the definition of the amortized insurance-in-force. The insurance-in-force amount that we used differs from the amount used by Price Waterhouse primarily because we deleted the loan principal payments made on mortgages to date to arrive at an amortized insurance-in-force amount of $305 billion. We calculated the capital ratio on the basis of the amortized insurance-in-force and not on unamortized insurance-in-force, as did Price Waterhouse. We used the amortized insurance-in-force for our calculations because FHA-insured mortgages are in fact fully amortized over the 30-year life of the loans. Therefore, the amortized insurance-in-force represents a better measure of the Fund’s potential liability. Price Waterhouse used the unamortized insurance-in-force for its calculations to be consistent with its previous reports and because the data on unamortized insurance-in-force are considered more reliable than the data on amortized insurance-in-force. However, Price Waterhouse also reported that its estimate of the capital ratio using the amortized insurance-in-force was 2.16 rather than 1.99. FHA’s Fund has accumulated the capital reserves needed to meet the legislative capital reserve target of 2 percent. Clearly, the legislative and other program changes have helped restore the Fund’s financial health and reverse the trend of the late 1980s and early 1990s toward insolvency. However, it should be recognized that fiscal year 1994 was a good year for FHA because actual economic conditions and forecasts of future economic conditions were favorable. Nevertheless, forecasting economic net worth and resulting capital ratios to determine whether FHA will have the funds it needs to cover its losses over the life of the loans it has insured for up to 30 years is uncertain. The performance of FHA’s loans, and therefore economic net worth and capital ratios, will depend on a number of economic and other factors, particularly on the rates of appreciation in house prices and the alternative, if any, that the Congress implements to restructure FHA. We provided a draft of this report to HUD and Price Waterhouse for their review and comment. We met with HUD officials, including the FHA Comptroller; HUD’s Director of the Program Evaluation Division, Office of Evaluation; and an official from HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research, and obtained their comments. HUD officials generally agreed with the factual material and conclusions presented in the report. The comments by the Director, Program Evaluation Division, focused on (1) the effect of proposed changes to FHA’s program and (2) FHA’s actions to improve the financial health of the Fund. Specifically, the Director commented that the draft report’s discussion of proposed changes to the program implied that they would have an exclusively negative impact on the financial health of the Fund. He believes that many of the proposed changes will have a positive effect on the Fund’s financial health. The report was changed to eliminate this implication. The Director also commented that the draft report attributed progress in achieving the capital reserve target to favorable actual economic conditions and favorable forecasts of future economic conditions. He pointed out that FHA had taken many actions to improve the financial health of the program, such as revising the premium refund schedule, and that this contribution to economic health should be recognized in our report. We agree. As pointed out in our October 1994 report on the economic net worth of the Fund as of September 30, 1993, we estimated that if FHA had not revised its premium refund schedule, the economic net worth of the Fund would have been about $500 million (10 percent) less than our baseline estimate. We added to our report information on additional actions taken by FHA to improve the financial health of the Fund. However, we continue to believe that favorable prevailing and forecasted economic conditions were primarily responsible for this improvement. As noted in our report, under our low-case economic scenario, which assumes house price appreciation rates 2 percentage points lower than our baseline, we estimated that the Fund’s economic net worth would be $3 billion, rather than $6.1 billion. HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research official commented that the methodology we used is fundamentally sound and provides a welcome second opinion to Price Waterhouse’s actuarial review. This official also provided technical comments on our model’s specification and interpretation of statistical results. He commented that if the technical comments cannot be addressed in the report and the Congress asks us to estimate the economic net worth of the Fund in the future, we should consult further with the Office of Policy Development and Research on our cash flow and economic models. We have revised the report to address many of the issues concerning the model’s specification and interpretation that were raised by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research. If the Congress asks us to do more work in this area, we will consult further with HUD on our models. We also met with a Price Waterhouse official, who commented that our economic model was solid. Price Waterhouse also provided technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. To estimate the economic net worth of FHA’s Fund as of September 30, 1994, and its resulting capital ratios under different economic scenarios, we examined existing studies on the single-family housing programs of both HUD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), academic literature on the modeling of mortgage foreclosures and prepayments, and previous work performed by Price Waterhouse, HUD, VA, us, and others on modeling government mortgage programs. On the basis of this examination, we developed econometric and cash flow models to prepare our estimates. For these models, we used data supplied by FHA and DRI/McGraw-Hill, a private economic forecasting company. Our econometric analysis estimated the historical relationships between the probability of loan foreclosure and prepayment and key explanatory factors, such as the borrower’s equity and the interest rate. To estimate these relationships, we used data on the performance of FHA-insured home mortgage loans—such as data on foreclosure, prepayment, and loss rates—originated from fiscal year 1975 through fiscal year 1994. Also, using our estimates of these relationships and of economic conditions, we developed a baseline forecast of future loan performance to estimate the Fund’s economic net worth and resulting capital ratio. We then developed additional estimates that assumed higher and lower future rates of appreciation in house prices; the scenario with the lower rates of appreciation of house prices also assumed higher unemployment. To estimate the net present value of future cash flows of the Fund, we constructed a cash flow model to measure the primary sources and uses of cash for loans originated from fiscal year 1975 through fiscal year 1994. Our model was constructed to estimate cash flows for each policy year through the life of a mortgage. An important component of the model was the conversion of all income and expense streams—regardless of the period in which they actually occur—into 1994 dollars. In addition to estimating the economic net worth of the Fund as a whole, we also generated approximations of the economic net worth of the loans originated in the 2 most recent fiscal years. To conduct this analysis, it was necessary not only to project future cash flows but also to estimate the level of past cash flows. To test the validity of our model, we examined how well our model predicted the actual rates of FHA’s loan foreclosures and prepayments through fiscal year 1994. We found that our predicted rates closely resembled the actual rates. To compare our estimate of the Fund’s economic net worth with the estimate prepared for FHA by Price Waterhouse, we compared our economic model with the model developed by Price Waterhouse. We also discussed with Price Waterhouse officials differences in the models and methods for forecasting the Fund’s economic net worth. A detailed discussion of our models and methodology for forecasting the economic net worth of FHA’s Fund appears in appendix II. We conducted our work from April 1995 through February 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to interested congressional committees; the Secretary of HUD; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others on request. Please contact me at (202) 512-7631 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. We estimate that during fiscal year 1994, the economic net worth of the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund increased by about $1.2 billion. This increase is attributable to our estimates of positive contributions to economic net worth made by two factors—the inclusion in our estimate of some fiscal year 1993 loans that had been excluded from our fiscal year 1993 estimate and loans insured by FHA in fiscal year 1994. The increase in economic net worth attributable to these two factors was offset to some extent by our estimate of a decrease in the Fund’s economic net worth from loans insured by FHA in fiscal year 1993 and earlier years. Table I.1 summarizes these factors. Data provided by FHA last year and used in our September 30, 1993, economic net worth estimates did not include information on all loan originations and terminations occurring in fiscal year 1993. FHA subsequently updated its records to include the remaining fiscal year 1993 activity. As shown in table I.1, including this loan activity increases our estimate of the Fund’s economic net worth by about $260 million, resulting in a revised estimate of about $5.16 billion as of the end of fiscal year 1993. We also estimate that loans insured by FHA in fiscal year 1994 contributed about $1.4 billion to the economic net worth of the Fund. This represents the third consecutive year in which the Fund’s new loans made a positive contribution to the Fund’s economic net worth. However, this increase in economic net worth was reduced by a $460 million decrease in the economic net worth of loans insured by FHA in fiscal year 1993 and earlier years. As a result, a net increase of $940 million was realized in our baseline estimate during fiscal year 1994, bringing our baseline economic net worth estimate as of September 30, 1994, to $6.1 billion. The $460 million decrease in the Fund’s estimated economic net worth for loans insured by FHA in fiscal year 1993 and earlier years is the result of several factors, some of which involved large increases or decreases in economic net worth. Table I.2 summarizes the factors contributing to changes in the economic net worth of loans made in fiscal year 1993 and earlier years. We estimate that the economic net worth of the Fund’s loans made in fiscal year 1993 and earlier years increased by about $620 million because updated data showed that these loans performed better in fiscal year 1994 than previously forecasted. This occurred, in part, because during fiscal year 1994, house prices increased more rapidly, and the unemployment rate was lower than in previous economic forecasts. Interest earned on investments accounted for an estimated increase of $618 million. Offsetting these increases were several factors that resulted in a decrease in the estimated economic net worth of the Fund’s loans made in fiscal year 1993 and earlier years. A $235 million decrease in economic net worth is attributable to our revised forecasts for loan foreclosures and prepayments for these loans during fiscal year 1995 and beyond. These revisions resulted largely from revised assumptions of future economic conditions that in combination, had a less favorable financial effect on the Fund. A $953 million decrease occurred because our 1994 forecast uses an economic model different from the model we used to derive our fiscal year 1993 estimate. Our revised model uses a different statistical approach and recognizes the higher risks associated with the performance of refinanced and adjustable rate mortgages rather than treating these mortgages like other FHA mortgages, as we have done in the past. The Fund’s economic net worth was also reduced by about $273 million because we updated our calculation of the present value of future cash flows using fiscal year 1994 instead of 1993 as our base, which increases the present value of future cash flows (which are negative) because they are discounted by 1 less year of interest. That is, because we are 1 year closer to paying claims associated with future foreclosures, the present value of these claims against the Fund is larger. The remaining $237 million decrease was attributable to other factors. This appendix describes the econometric and cash flow models that we built and the analysis we conducted to estimate the economic net worth of the Federal Housing Administration’s (FHA) Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund (Fund) as of the end of fiscal year 1994. The goal of the econometric analysis was to forecast mortgage foreclosure and prepayment activity, which affect the flow of cash into and out of the Fund. We forecasted activity for all loans active at the end of fiscal year 1994 for each year from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2024 on the basis of assumptions stated in this appendix. We estimated equations from data covering fiscal years 1975 through 1994 that included all 50 states and the District of Columbia but excluded U.S. territories. Our forecasting models used observations on loan-quarters, that is, information on the characteristics and status of an insured loan during each quarter of its life to predict conditional foreclosure and prepayment probabilities. More specifically, our model used a continuous time estimation routine, CTM to jointly predict the probabilities of a loan terminating in a claim or a prepayment at a given time, as a function of interest and unemployment rates, the borrower’s equity (computed using a house’s price and current and contract interest rates as well as a loan’s duration), the loan-to-value (LTV) ratio, the house price, the geographic location of the house, and the length of time that the loan has been active. Cash flows out of the Fund when FHA pays a claim on a foreclosed mortgage and when a prepaid mortgage results in the partial refund of a premium. Cash flows into the Fund when FHA sells the foreclosed property and when borrowers pay the premium for the mortgage insurance. We forecasted the cash flows into and out of the Fund on the basis of our foreclosure and prepayment models and key economic variables provided by DRI/McGraw-Hill, a leading economic forecasting firm. We then used the forecasted cash flows, including an estimate of interest that would be earned or foregone, and the Fund’s capital resources to estimate the economic net worth of the Fund. We conducted separate estimations for investors’ mortgages, fixed-rate mortgages with terms of 25 years or more (hereafter referred to as 30-year mortgages), fixed-rate mortgages with terms of less than 25 years (hereafter referred to as 15-year mortgages), and adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs). The 30-year fixed-rate mortgages and investor mortgages were further divided into new (purchase money) and refinancing mortgage samples. A complete description of the data we used, our models, and the results we obtained are discussed in detail in the following sections. For our analysis, we selected from FHA’s computerized files a random sample of 1.4 million mortgages insured by FHA from fiscal year 1975 through fiscal year 1994. From FHA’s records, we obtained information on the initial characteristics of each loan, such as the year of the loan’s origination and state in which the loan originated; the LTV ratio; the loan’s amount; and the contract’s interest rate. We categorized the loans as either foreclosed, prepaid, or active as of the end of fiscal year 1994. To describe macroeconomic conditions at the national and state levels, we obtained data from the 1995 Economic Report of the President on the implicit price deflator for personal consumption expenditures. The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation’s quarterly interest rates for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages were used, along with DRI/McGraw-Hill’s data at the state level, on the median house price appreciation and civilian unemployment rates and on interest rates on 1-year and 10-year U.S. Treasury bonds. People buy homes for consumption and investment purposes. Normally, people do not plan to default on loans. However, conditions that lead to defaults occur. Defaults may be triggered by a number of events: unemployment, divorce, death, and so forth. These events are not likely to trigger foreclosure if the owner has positive equity in his/her home because the sale of the home with realization of a profit is better than the loss of the home through foreclosure. However, if the property is worth less than the mortgage, these events may trigger default. Prepayments to financial institutions may be triggered by other events—declining interest rates, which prompt refinancing; rising house prices, which prompt the take-out of accumulated equity; or the sale of the residence. Because FHA’s mortgages are assumable, the sale of a residence does not automatically trigger prepayment. For example, if interest rates have risen substantially since the time the mortgage was originated, a new purchaser may prefer to assume the seller’s mortgage. We hypothesized that foreclosure behavior is influenced by the level of unemployment, price of the house, value of the home, current interest rates, contract interest rates, home equity, and region of the country within which the home is located. We hypothesized that prepayment is influenced by (1) a function of the difference between the interest rate specified in the mortgage contract and the mortgage rates generally prevailing in each subsequent year, (2) the amount of accumulated equity, (3) the price of the house, and (4) the region of the country in which the home is located. The estimated model also allows for the presence of unobserved heterogeneity, that is, the possibility that individual borrowers will refinance (or default) at different interest rate differentials (or levels of equity) for reasons not recorded in the data. Such reasons might include differences in financial sophistication, differences in moving plans, or differences in the value attached to a good credit rating. In models that do not allow for the presence of heterogeneity, the impact of time on termination probabilities will be overstated, since the loans most likely to terminate will terminate first. Additionally, estimating a heterogeneity distribution provides a method of capturing the effect of refinancing waves, such as those that occurred during 1986-87 and 1992-93, on the termination probabilities of the mortgages that remain. Our first set of coefficients estimate conditional mortgage foreclosure probabilities as a function of a variety of explanatory variables. Our second set of coefficients estimate conditional prepayment probabilities. The model estimated is a competing risks hazard model. The probability of prepaying or terminating with a loss to the Fund over the course of a quarter is jointly estimated as a function of time (the baseline hazard) multiplied by a linear function of the independent variables. The baseline hazards are estimated as a Box-Cox transformation of time measured in months. - 1)/l when l is not zero, and ln(x) when l =0. termination (claim or prepayment), CTM also estimates a coefficient by which those points are multiplied, referred to as the factor loading. In effect, CTM estimates a distribution of intercepts for each termination probability. This incorporates the assumption that mortgage borrowers differ in their probabilities of mortgage termination in unobservable ways. While the different probabilities are not attached to individual borrowers, the heterogeneity parameters produce an estimate of the proportions of borrowers with high or low termination propensities. The methodology is analogous to a random effects model for the analysis of panel data. The variables we used to predict foreclosures and prepayments fall into two general categories: descriptions of states of the economy and characteristics of the loan. In choosing explanatory variables, we relied on the results of our own and others’ previous efforts to model foreclosure and prepayment probabilities and on implications drawn from economic principles. We allowed for many of the same variables to affect both foreclosure and prepayment. The single most important determinant of a loan’s foreclosure is the borrower’s equity in the property, which changes over time because (1) payments reduce the amount owed on the mortgage, (2) property values can increase or decrease, and (3) prevailing mortgage interest rates change, while the rate on a fixed-rate mortgage remains constant. Equity is a measure of the current value of a property compared with the current value of the mortgage on that property. Previous research strongly indicates that borrowers with small amounts of equity or even negative equity are more likely than other borrowers to default. We computed equity as the difference between the value of the property and the value of the mortgage, expressed as a percentage of the value of the property. For example, if the value of a property is $100,000 and the value of the mortgage is $80,000, then equity is 20 percent, or 0.2. To measure equity for modeling the foreclosure behavior of fixed-rate mortgages, we calculated the value of the mortgage as the present value of the remaining mortgage payments (up to a maximum of 10 years), evaluated at the current quarter’s fixed-rate mortgage interest rate, and added the book value of the mortgage at the end of 10 years, thus assuming a prepayment 10 years into the future. We calculated the value of the property by multiplying the value of the property at the time of the loan’s origination by the change in the state’s median nominal house price between the year of origination and the current year. Because the effects on claims of small changes in equity may differ depending on whether the level of equity is high or low, we used a pair of equity variables, LAGEQHI and LAGEQLOW, in our foreclosure regression. The effect of equity is lagged 1 year, since we are predicting the time of foreclosure, which usually occurs many months after a loan first defaults. We also included lagged equity in our prepayment regression. We anticipated that higher levels of equity would be associated with an increased likelihood of prepayment. Borrowers with substantial equity in their home may be interested in prepaying their existing mortgage and taking out a larger one to obtain cash for other purposes. Borrowers with little or no equity may be less likely to prepay because they may have to take money from other savings to pay off their loan and cover transaction costs. For the prepayment regression, we defined equity as book equity (LAGBKHI and LAGBKLOW). Book equity was defined as the estimated property value less the amortized balance of the loan. It is book value that the borrower must pay to retire the debt. Additionally, the effect of interest rate changes on prepayment are captured by the relative interest variables, RELEQHI and RELEQLO. In addition to LAGEQHI and LAGEQLOW, we included another variable in our regressions related to equity: the initial DOWNPAY, calculated as 1 minus the LTV ratio. In some years, FHA measured the LTV ratio as the loan amount less the financed portion of the mortgage insurance premium in the numerator and appraised value plus closing costs in the denominator. To reflect true economic LTV, we adjusted FHA’s measure by removing closing costs from the denominator and including financed premiums in the numerator. DOWNPAY measures a borrower’s initial equity, so we anticipate that it will be negatively related to the probability of foreclosure. One reason for including DOWNPAY is that it measures initial equity accurately. Our measures of current equity are less accurate because we do not have data on the rate of change for the price of each borrower’s house. Another reason for including DOWNPAY and expecting it to have a negative sign in our foreclosure equation is that it may capture the effects of income constraints. We are unable to include borrowers’ incomes or payment-to-income ratios directly because data on borrowers’ incomes were not available for every year in the sample period. However, it seems likely that borrowers with little or no down payment are more likely to be financially stretched in meeting their payments and, therefore, more likely to default. The anticipated relationship between DOWNPAY and the probability of prepayment is uncertain. We used the natural logarithm of the annual unemployment rate for each state for the period from 1975 through 1994 to describe the condition of the economy in the state where a loan was made. We anticipated that foreclosures would be higher in years and states with higher unemployment rates and that prepayments would be lower because property sales slow down during recessions. The actual variable we used in our regressions, LAGUNEMP, is defined as the logarithm of the preceding year’s unemployment rate in that state. We included the logarithm of the interest rate on the mortgage as an explanatory variable in the foreclosure equation. We expected a higher interest rate to be associated with a higher probability of foreclosure because a higher interest rate causes a higher monthly payment. However, in explaining the likelihood of prepayment, our model uses a function of the ratio of current mortgage rates to the contract rate on the borrower’s mortgage. A borrower’s incentive to prepay is high when the interest rate on a loan is greater than the rate at which money can now be borrowed, and it diminishes as current interest rates increase. To capture the relative attractiveness of prepaying, we calculated the present value of the mortgage payments over the remaining term of the mortgage (up to 10 years) using the currently prevailing mortgage interest rate to estimate the market value of the mortgage. This value was divided by the book value of the mortgage (the unpaid principal balance), and the relative balance was used as an explanatory variable for prepayment. In our prepayment regression, we used the two relative interest rate variables defined above, RELEQHI and RELEQLO, so that the effect of changes in relative interest rates could be different over different ranges. RELEQHI is defined as the ratio of the market value of the mortgage to the book value of the mortgage but is never smaller than 1. RELEQLO is also defined as the ratio of the market value of the mortgage to the book value but is never larger than 1. Thus, RELEQHI captures a borrower’s incentive to refinance, and RELEQLO captures a new buyer’s incentive to assume the seller’s mortgage. We created two variables, REFIN and REFIN2, that measure how many quarters have passed in which the borrower had not taken advantage of a refinancing opportunity. We defined a refinancing opportunity as having occurred if the interest rate on fixed-rate mortgages in any previous quarter in which a loan was active was at least 150 basis points below the contract rate on the mortgage. REFIN counts the number of quarters in which the loan has been active and a refinancing opportunity has not been seized, up to a maximum of eight quarters. REFIN2 counts the number of passed refinancing opportunities in excess of eight quarters, up to a maximum of eight more quarters. Several reasons might explain why borrowers passed up apparently profitable refinancing opportunities. For example, if they had been unemployed or their property had fallen in value, they might have had difficulty obtaining refinancing. This reasoning suggests that REFIN and REFIN2 would be positively related to the probability of foreclosure; that is, a borrower unable to obtain refinancing previously because of poor financial status might be more likely to default. Similar reasoning suggests a negative relationship between REFIN and REFIN2 and the probability of prepayment; a borrower unable to obtain refinancing previously might also be unlikely to obtain refinancing currently. A negative relationship might also exist if a borrower’s passing up of one profitable refinancing opportunity reflected a lack of financial sophistication that in turn, would be associated with passing up additional opportunities. However, a borrower who anticipated moving soon might pass up an apparently profitable refinancing opportunity to avoid the transaction costs associated with refinancing. A positive relationship might exist in this case, with the probability of prepayment if the borrower fulfilled his/her anticipation and moved, thereby prepaying the loan. Another explanatory variable is the volatility of interest rates, INTVOL, defined as the standard deviation of the monthly average of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation’s series of 30-year fixed-rate mortgage effective interest rates. We calculated the standard deviation over the previous 12 months. Financial theory predicts that borrowers are likely to refinance more slowly at times of volatile rates because there is a larger incentive to wait for a still-lower interest rate. We also included the slope of the yield curve, YIELDCUR, in our prepayment estimates, which we calculated as the difference between the 1-year and the 10-year Treasury rates of interest. We then subtracted 250 basis points from this difference and set differences that were less than zero to zero. This variable measured the relative attractiveness of adjustable-rate mortgages versus fixed-rate mortgages. When ARMs have low rates, borrowers with fixed-rate mortgages may be induced into refinancing into ARMs to lower their monthly payments. For adjustable-rate mortgages, we did not use relative equity variables as we did with fixed-rate mortgages. Instead, we defined four variables, CHANGEPOS, CHANGENEG, CAPPEDPOS, and CAPPEDNEG, to capture the relationship between current interest rates and the interest rate paid on each mortgage. CHANGEPOS measures how far the interest rate on the mortgage has increased since origination, with a minimum of zero, while CHANGENEG measures how far the rate has decreased, with a maximum of zero. CAPPEDPOS measures how much farther the interest rate on the mortgage will rise, if prevailing interest rates in the market do not change, while CAPPEDNEG measures how much farther the mortgage’s rate will fall if prevailing interest rates do not change. For example, if an ARM is originated at 7 percent and interest rates have increased by 250 basis points 1 year later, CHANGEPOS will equal 100 because FHA’s ARMs can increase by no more than 100 basis points in a year. CAPPEDPOS will equal 150 basis points, since the mortgage rate will eventually increase by another 150 basis points if market interest rates do not change, and CHANGENEG and CAPPEDNEG will equal zero. As interest rates have generally trended downwards since FHA introduced ARMs, there is very little experience with ARMs in an increasing interest rate environment. We created four 0-1 variables to reflect the geographic distribution of FHA loans and included them in both regressions. Locational differences may capture the effects of differences in borrowers’ income, rates of appreciation in house prices, underwriting standards by lenders, economic conditions not captured by the unemployment rate, or other factors that may affect foreclosure and prepayment rates. We assigned each loan to one of the four Bureau of the Census regions on the basis of the state in which the borrower resided. The West Region was the omitted category, that is, the regression coefficients show how each of the regions was different from the West Region. We also created a variable, JUDICIAL, to indicate states that allowed judicial foreclosure procedures in place of nonjudicial foreclosures. To obtain an insight into the differential effect of relatively larger loans on mortgage foreclosures and prepayments, we used the logarithm of the initial house price as an explanatory variable. This variable was divided into three ranges—below $60,000, $60,000 to $120,000, and $120,000 and over—to allow the effect of house price to change over its range. The three ranges were called LOGPRICL, LOGPRICM, and LOGPRICH, respectively. All dollar amounts are inflation adjusted and represent 1994 dollars. Finally, to capture the time pattern of foreclosures and prepayments (given the effects of equity and the other explanatory variables), we defined two variables on the basis of the number of quarters that had passed since the year of the loan’s origination. We refer to these variables as YEAR12 and YEAR34. YEAR12 counts the number of quarters since origination, up to the sixth quarter. YEAR34 counts the number of quarters since origination from the 7th to the 14th quarter. TIME measures the number of months elapsed since origination, and EXPONENT is the estimated value of a Box-Cox transformation of TIME. We created the variables YEAR12 and YEAR34 to allow for the passage of time to have much stronger impacts on termination probabilities in the early months of a mortgage’s life. Table II.1 summarizes the variables we used to predict claims and prepayments along with their corresponding means. These means are for investor mortgages, both for purchase and for refinancing purposes; 30-year fixed-rate mortgages, both for purchase and for refinancing purposes; 15-year fixed-rate mortgages; and adjustable-rate mortgages. Log of house price if ^æM\Q $60,000 Log of house price 0.32 $60,000 but $60,000 but ^æM\Q$120,000 Log of house price $120,000 Log of contract interest rate The volatility of mortgage rates, defined as the standard deviation of 30-year fixed mortgage rates over the prior 12 months The slope of the yield curve, defined as the difference between 1-year and 10-year Treasury interest rates minus 250 basis points, but not less than zero The ratio of the market value of the mortgage to the book value if the market value is below the book value, else 1 The ratio of the market value of the mortgage to the book value if the market value is above the book value, else 1 Number of quarters that the prevailing mortgage interest rate had been at least 150 basis points below the contract rate and the borrower had not refinanced, up to eight quarters Number of quarters that the above situation prevailed, beyond eight quarters (continued) The logarithm of the previous year’s unemployment rate in the state Number of quarters since origination, up to six Number of quarters since the 6th, up to 14 The down payment, expressed as a percentage of the purchase price of the house. The values reported in FHA’s database were adjusted to ensure that closing costs were included in the loan amount and excluded from the house price. The value of equity, defined as 1 minus the ratio of the present value of the loan balance, evaluated at the current mortgage interest rate, to the current estimated house price, if equity is less than 20 percent, else 20 percent The value of equity, defined as 1 minus the ratio of the present value of the loan balance, evaluated at the current mortgage interest rate, to the current estimated house price, minus 20 percent, but no less than zero The value of equity, defined as 1 minus the ratio of the amortized loan balance to the current estimated house price, if equity is less than 20 percent, else 20 percent (continued) The value of equity, defined as 1 minus the ratio of the amortized loan balance to the current estimated house price, minus 20 percent, but no less than zero 1, if the loan was in the East (Conn., Maine, Mass., N.H., N.J., N.Y., Pa., R.I., and Vt.), else zero 1, if the loan was in the South (Ala., Ark., D.C., Del., Ga., Ky., La., Md., Miss., N.C., Okla., S.C., Tenn., Tex., Va., and W.Va.), else zero 1, if the loan was in the Midwest (Ill., Ind., Iowa, Kans., Mich., Minn., Mo., Nebr., N.D., Ohio, S.D., and Wis.), else zero 1, if state allowed judicial foreclosure (list of states varies by year) N/A = not applicable. As described above, we used competing risks hazard rate models to estimate loan foreclosures and prepayments as a function of a variety of predictor variables. We estimated separate regressions for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages, 15-year fixed-rate mortgages, investors’ loans, and adjustable-rate mortgages originated (made) from fiscal year 1983 to fiscal year 1993. The 30-year fixed-rate mortgages and investors’ mortgages were further divided into samples of purchase money loans and loans made for the purpose of refinancing. Although FHA was given authority to insure streamlined refinancing loans in 1983, FHA’s database cannot reliably identify refinancing loans before 1991. Therefore, we placed any loan written after fiscal year 1982 with an LTV ratio of zero into the refinanced loan sample, along with loans that FHA’s database identified as refinancing loans. We estimated quarterly termination probabilities throughout the life of the loan or the end of fiscal year 1994, whichever came first. Tables II.2 and II.3 present the estimated coefficients for all of the predictor variables for foreclosure and prepayment equations. Table II.4 displays the estimated heterogeneity distributions for the regression results in the previous tables. ARM loan regression results are presented in table II.5. A heterogeneity distribution was not estimated for ARMs. All loan categories except for the refinanced investor loans were estimated with hundreds of thousands of observations, so most coefficients are significant at standard levels. In general, our results are consistent with the economic reasoning that underlies our models. Most importantly, the probability of foreclosure declines as current equity and down payment increase, and the probability of prepayment increases as the current mortgage interest rate falls below the contract mortgage interest rate. Both of these effects are very strong. As expected, the unemployment rate is positively related to the probability of foreclosure and negatively related to the probability of prepayment. Our results also indicate that the probability of foreclosure is higher when the contract rate of interest is higher. Mortgages on more-expensive houses have higher prepayment probabilities. For purchase money mortgages, foreclosure probability declines with the price of a house, but for refinanced mortgages foreclosure probability rises with price. For 30-year fixed mortgages and for investor mortgages, passing up a profitable refinancing opportunity raises the probability of foreclosure. For all mortgages, passing up profitable refinancing opportunities lowers prepayment probabilities. The heterogeneity distributions presented in table II.4 indicate substantial differences in intercepts among different classifications of borrowers. For instance, among new 30-year fixed-rate borrowers, 62.9 percent are estimated to have a foreclosure intercept of 17.739, 24.8 percent (87.7 percent minus 62.9 percent) are estimated to have a foreclosure intercept of 17.202 (a location of 0.169 times a factor loading of –3.179, added to the intercept of 17.739), 5.9 percent are estimated to have a foreclosure intercept of 16.503, and 6.4 percent are estimated to have a foreclosure intercept of 14.56. This indicates that about 6.4 percent of borrowers have substantially lower termination probabilities than do most borrowers. To test the validity of our model, we examined how well the model predicted actual patterns of FHA’s claim and prepayment rates through fiscal year 1994. Using a sample of 10 percent of FHA’s loans made from fiscal year 1975 through fiscal year 1994, we found that our predicted rates closely resembled actual rates. To predict the probabilities of claim payment and prepayment, we combined the model’s coefficients with the information on a loan’s characteristics and information on economic conditions described by our predictor variables in each quarter between a loan’s origination and fiscal year 1994. For each loan-quarter, we predicted termination probabilities and compared them with random numbers from a uniform distribution. If the termination probability was greater than the random number, the loan was assumed to terminate in that quarter. If our model predicted a foreclosure or prepayment termination, we determined the loan’s balance during that quarter to indicate the dollar amount associated with the foreclosure or prepayment. We estimated cumulative claim and prepayment rates by summing the predicted claim and prepayment dollar amounts for all loans originated in each of the fiscal years 1975 through 1994. We compared these predictions with the actual cumulative (through fiscal year 1994) claim and prepayment rates for the loans in our sample. Figure II.1 compares predicted and actual cumulative foreclosure rates, and figure II.2 compares predicted and actual cumulative prepayment rates. We then forecasted future loan activity (claims and prepayments) on the basis of the regression results described above and on DRI/McGraw-Hill’s forecasts of the key economic and housing market variables. DRI/McGraw-Hill forecasts the median sales price of existing housing, by state and year, through fiscal year 1998. We subtracted 2 percentage points per year to adjust for improvements in the quality of housing over time and the depreciation of individual housing units. After fiscal year 1998, we assumed that prices would rise at 3 percent per year. For our base case, we made DRI/McGraw-Hill’s forecasts of appreciation rates less optimistic by subtracting another 1 percentage point per year from the company’s forecasts. DRI/McGraw-Hill also forecast each state’s unemployment rate through fiscal year 2002. For our base case, we used DRI/McGraw-Hill’s forecasts of each state’s unemployment rate and assumed that rates from fiscal year 2003 on would equal the rate in fiscal year 2002. We also used DRI/McGraw-Hill’s forecasts of interest rates on 30-year fixed-rate mortgages. The economic value of the Fund is defined in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 as the “current cash available to the Fund, plus the net present value of all future cash inflows and outflows expected to result from the outstanding mortgages in the Fund.” Information on the capital resources of the Fund as of September 30, 1994, was obtained from the audited financial statements for fiscal year 1994. Capital resources were reported to be $10.8 billion. To estimate the net present value of future cash flows of the Fund, we constructed a cash flow model to measure the five primary sources and uses of cash for loans originated in fiscal years 1975 through 1994. The two sources of cash are income from mortgagees’ premiums and net proceeds from the sale of foreclosed properties. The three uses of cash are payments associated with claims on foreclosed properties, refunds of premiums on mortgages that are prepaid, and administrative expenses for management of the program. In addition to estimating the economic value of the Fund as a whole, we also generated approximations of the economic value of the loans originated in the 2 most recent fiscal years. To conduct this analysis, it was necessary not only to project future cash flows but also to estimate the level of past cash flows. Our model was constructed to estimate cash flows for each policy year through the life of a mortgage. An important component of the model is its ability to convert all income and expense streams—regardless of the period in which they actually occur—into a 1994 present value. We applied discount rates to match as closely as possible the rate of return that FHA likely earned in the past or would earn in the future from its investment in U.S. Treasury securities. As an approximation of what FHA earned for each book of business, we used a rate of return comparable to the yield on 7-year U.S. Treasury securities prevailing when that book was written to discount all cash flows occurring in the first 7 years of that book’s existence. We assumed that after 7 years, the Fund’s investment was rolled over into new Treasury securities at the interest rate prevailing at that time and used that rate to discount cash flows to the rollover date. For rollover dates occurring in fiscal year 1994 and beyond, we used 7 percent as the new discount rate. As an example, cash flows associated with the fiscal year 1992 book of business and occurring from fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year 1998 (i.e, the first 7 policy years) were discounted at the 7-year Treasury rate prevailing in fiscal year 1992. Cash flows associated with the fiscal year 1992 book of business but occurring in fiscal year 1999 and beyond are discounted at a rate of 7 percent. Our methodology for estimating each of the five principal cash flows is described below. Because FHA’s premium policy has changed over time, our calculations of premium income to the Fund changes depending on the date of the mortgage’s origination. For fiscal years 1975 through 1983: Premium = annual outstanding principal balance x 0.5%. For fiscal years 1984 through June 30, 1991: Premium = original loan amount x mortgage insurance premium. The mortgage insurance premium during this period is equal to 3.8 percent for 30-year mortgages and 2.4 percent for 15-year mortgages. For the purposes of this analysis, mortgages of other lengths of time are grouped with those they most closely approximate. Effective July 1, 1991, legislation mandated that FHA add an annual premium of 0.5 percent of the outstanding principal balance to its up-front premiums. The number of years for which a borrower would be liable for making premium payments depended on the LTV ratio at the time of origination. (See table II.6.) For the period July 1, 1991, through September 30, 1992: Premium = (original loan amount x 3.8%) + (annual outstanding principal balance x 0.5%). For the period October 1, 1992, through December 31, 1992: Premium = (original loan amount x 3.0%) + (annual outstanding principal balance x 0.5%). For the period January 1, 1993, through April 17, 1994: 30-year mortgages: Premium = (original loan amount x 3.0%) + (annual outstanding principal balance x 0.5%). 15-year mortgages: Premium = (original loan amount x 2.0%) + (annual outstanding principal balance x 0.25%). For the period April 18, 1994, through September 30, 1994: 30-year mortgages: Premium = (original loan amount x 2.25%) + (annual outstanding principal balance x 0.5%). 15-year mortgages: Premium = (original loan amount x 2.00%) + (annual outstanding principal balance x 0.25%). For 15-year mortgages, annual premiums are payable for 8, 4, or zero years depending on the LTV category of the mortgage at loan origination. Claims Payments = outstanding principal balance on foreclosed mortgages x acquisition cost ratio. We define the acquisition cost ratio as being equal to the total amount paid by FHA to settle a claim and acquire a property (i.e., FHA’s “acquisition cost” as reported in its database) divided by the outstanding principal balance on the mortgage at the time of foreclosure. For the purpose of our analysis, we calculated an average acquisition cost ratio for each year’s book of business using actual data for fiscal years 1975 through 1992 and applied that average to projected claims. Beginning in fiscal year 1993, FHA’s A43 database no longer contained the information needed to calculate the acquisition cost ratio. Therefore, we used the fiscal year 1992 ratio for fiscal years 1993 and 1994. (See tables II.7 and II.8.) Net proceeds = (5.9/12) x claims payments from previous period x (1 - loss ratio) + (6.1/12) x claims payments from current period x (1 - loss ratio). We assumed the lag time between the payment of a claim and the receipt of proceeds from the disposition of the property to be 5.9 months on the basis of the latest available information reported by Price Waterhouse in its fiscal year 1994 financial audit of FHA. We define the loss ratio as being equal to FHA’s reported dollar loss after the disposition of property divided by the reported acquisition cost. For forecast periods, we applied a loss rate of 38 percent, which is the average loss reported by FHA’s financial auditors for fiscal year 1994. This is comparable to the weighted average of losses for fiscal years 1975 through 1989. The amount of premium refunds paid by FHA’s Fund depends on the policy year in which the mortgage is prepaid and the type of mortgage. For mortgages prepaid from October 1, 1983, to December 31, 1993, we used the refund rate schedule that FHA published in the April 1984 edition of Mortgage Banking. In 1993, FHA changed its refund policy to affect mortgages prepaid on or after January 1, 1994. The refund rates that we used from the new schedule—which assume prepayment at mid-year—are found in table II.9. For loans prepaying through December 31, 1993: Refunds = original loan amount x refund rate. For loans prepaying on or after January 1, 1994: Refunds = up-front mortgage insurance premium x refund rate. Administrative expenses = outstanding principal balance x 0.1% Our estimate of administrative expenses as 0.1 percent of the outstanding principal balances was based on data in recent years’ financial statements. We conducted additional analyses to determine the sensitivity of our forecasts to the values of certain key variables. Because we found that projected losses from foreclosures are sensitive to the rate of unemployment and the rate of appreciation of house prices, we adjusted the forecasts of unemployment and price appreciation to provide a range of economic value estimates under alternative economic scenarios. Our starting points for forecasts of the key economic variables were forecasts made by DRI/McGraw-Hill. We used DRI/McGraw-Hill’s forecasts of house prices in each state, adjusted as described above, as the basis for our estimation of future equity. We subtracted 2 percentage points per year from DRI/McGraw-Hill’s projected price increases to adjust for quality improvements over time. For our base case, we made DRI/McGraw-Hill’s forecasts of appreciation rates less optimistic by subtracting 1 percentage point per year from its forecasts. For our high case, we added 2 percentage points per year to our base case. For our low case, we subtracted 2 percentage points from our base case. DRI/McGraw-Hill also forecast each state’s unemployment rate through fiscal year 2002. For our high case and our base case, we used DRI/McGraw-Hill’s forecasts of each state’s unemployment rate and assumed that rates from fiscal year 2003 on would equal the rate in fiscal year 2002. For our low case, we added 1 percentage point to the forecasted unemployment rate during 1995 and beyond. Table II.10 summarizes the three economic scenarios. The rates of house price appreciation and unemployment are based on DRI/McGraw-Hill’s forecasts. The numbers in the table are our weighted averages of DRI/McGraw-Hill’s state-level forecasts; each state’s number is weighted by the state’s share of FHA’s fiscal year 1993 business. To assess the impact of our assumptions of the loss and discount rates on the economic value of the Fund, we operated our cash flow model with alternative values for these variables. We found that for the economic scenario of our base case, a 1-percentage-point increase in the loss rate (from our assumption of 38 to 39 percent) resulted in a $201 million decline in our estimate of the economic value of the Fund. With respect to the discount rate, we found that for our base case economic scenario, a 1-percentage-point increase in the interest rate that was applied to most periods’ future cash flow (from our assumption of 7 to 8 percent) resulted in a $90 million increase in our estimate of economic value. Mortgage Financing: Financial Health of FHA’s Home Mortgage Insurance Program Has Improved (GAO/RCED-95-20, Oct. 18, 1994). Mortgage Financing: Financial Health of FHA’s Home Mortgage Insurance Program Has Improved (GAO/T-RCED-94-255, June 30, 1994). Homeownership: Actuarial Soundness of FHA’s Single-Family Mortgage Insurance Program (GAO/T-RCED-93-64, July 27, 1993). Homeownership: Loan Policy Changes Made to Strengthen FHA’s Mortgage Insurance Program (GAO/RCED-91-61, Mar. 1, 1991). Impact of FHA Loan Policy Changes on Financial Losses and Homebuyers (GAO/T-RCED-90-94, July 24, 1990). Impact of FHA Loan Policy Changes on Financial Losses and Homebuyers (GAO/T-RCED-90-95, July 10, 1990). Impact of FHA Loan Policy Changes on Its Cash Position (GAO/T-RCED-90-70, June 6, 1990). Impact of FHA Loan Policy Changes (GAO/T-RCED-90-17, Nov. 16, 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 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 Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) Mutual Mortgage Insurance Fund, focusing on: (1) an estimate of the Fund's economic net worth as of the end of fiscal year 1994; (2) the results of the legislatively prescribed capital reserve ratio that expresses economic net worth as a percentage of insurance-in-force; and (3) a comparison between the GAO estimate of the Fund's economic net worth and an estimate prepared by an accounting firm. GAO found that: (1) in 1994, the Fund's economic net worth continued to improve; (2) as of September 30, 1994, the Fund had $305 billion in outstanding mortgage loans; (3) using moderate house price appreciation rates and unemployment rates, the Fund had an economic net worth of about $6.1 billion and a resulting capital ratio of 2.02 percent; (4) using low house price appreciation rates and high unemployment rates, the Fund had an economic net worth of $3 billion; (5) using high house price appreciation rates and low unemployment rates, the Fund had an economic net worth of $7.4 billion; (6) during fiscal year 1994, the Fund's capital ratio of 2.02 percent of the amortized insurance-in-force exceeded the November 2000 capital ratio goal of 2 percent; (7) the firm estimated that the Fund had an economic net worth of about $6.68 billion and a resulting capital ratio of 1.99 percent at the end of fiscal year 1994, which was about the same as GAO estimate; and (8) the Fund's future economic net worth will depend on a number of economic factors including the appreciation rates in housing prices and whether FHA is restructured.

The mystery of a "ghost ship" found drifting near Myanmar has been solved. The vessel, which bears the name “Sam Ratulangi PB 1600”, ran aground on Thursday near Thongwa township in the country’s Yangon region. Coastguard, navy and police teams have been monitoring the ship since villagers first spotted it earlier in the week. When it finally came to a standstill after hitting a sandbar, a team entered the vessel and confirmed there was no one on board. “No crew or cargo was found on the ship. It was quite puzzling how such a big ship turned up in our waters,” U Ne Win Yangon regional parliament MP for Thongwa, told The Myanmar Times. “The authorities are keeping a watch on it.” Yangon police confirmed the container ship was carrying an Indonesian flag. Shape Created with Sketch. World news in pictures Show all 50 left Created with Sketch. right Created with Sketch. Shape Created with Sketch. World news in pictures 1/50 12 October 2018 Spanish Unionist demonstrators carry Spanish flags during a demonstration on Spain's National Day in Barcelona Reuters 2/50 11 October 2018 Russia has halted all crewed space flights following the failed launch of the Soyuz MS-10 rocket (pictured). Investigations in to the rocket's malfunction are ongoing Reuters 3/50 People look on at a damaged store after Hurricane Michael passed through Panama City, Florida. A Category 4 storm, with maximum sustained winds of 155 mph, was the most powerful storm ever to hit the Florida Panhandle Getty 4/50 9 October 2018 The Darul Muttaqien Mosque was the heart of the community for many in Palu. A lot of the victims were inside their homes or at the mosque when the quake struck. Magareb prayer for many, was their last. Paddy Dowling travelled with UK based charity Muslim Aid to the disaster areas of North Sulawesi to witness the scale of Indonesia’s earthquake & tsunami. They are the only British NGO delivering aid out in Palu through local partners Paddy Dowling 5/50 8 October 2018 People take part in a candle-light vigil in memory of Bulgarian TV journalist Viktoria Marinova in Ruse Reuters 6/50 7 October 2018 Supporters of Jair Bolsonaro, presidential candidate with the Social Liberal Party, celebrate in front of his house during the general elections in Rio. The far-right congressman, who waxes nostalgically about the dictatorship, won the vote but not an outright victory. The second-round-run-off will be between Bolsoanro and the leftist Workers' party Fernando Haddad AP 7/50 6 October 2018 Demonstrators hold a banner that reads "freedom of the press, not allowed to be trampled" and "shame on the governments vindictive move" past a symbolic 'political red line' during a protest after Hong Kong immigration authorities declined a visa renewal for senior Financial Times journalist Victor Mallet, outside the immigration department building in Hong Kong. Hong Kong's decision to effectively blacklist a senior Financial Times journalist required an "urgent explanation", the UK said AFP/Getty 8/50 5 October 2018 Congolese doctor Denis Mukwege and Yazidi campaigner Nadia Murad announced as the winners of the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize. The pair were awarded the honour “for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict.” AFP/Getty/Reuters 9/50 4 October 2018 Dutch security services expel Russian spies over plot targeting chemical weapons watchdog. This picture shows the four GRU officers who entered the Netherlands at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport on April 10, travelling on official Russian passports. On April 13 they parked a car carrying specialist hacking equipment outside the headquarters of the OPCW in The Hague. At that point the Dutch counter-terrorism officers intervened to disrupt the operation and the four GRU officers were ordered to leave the country PA 10/50 3 October 2018 Quake survivors make their way past a washed out passenger ferry in Wani, Indonesia's Central Sulawesi, after an earthquake and tsunami hit the area on September 28. Nearly 1,400 people are now known to have died as UN officials warned the "needs remain vast" for both desperate survivors and rescue teams still searching for victims AFP/Getty 11/50 2 October 2018 US first lady Melania Trump holds a baby during a visit to a hospital in Accra, Ghana. The first lady is visiting Africa on her first big solo international trip, aiming to make child well-being the focus of a five-day, four-country tour Reuters 12/50 1 October 2018 Indian school children dressed like Mahatma Gandhi perform yoga during a event at a school in Chennai ahead of his birth anniversary. Indians all over the country celebrate Gandhi's birthday on October 2 AFP/Getty 13/50 30 September 2018 An Albanian man casts his vote at a polling station in the village of Zajas on September 30, 2018, for a referendum to re-name the country. - Macedonians cast ballots on September 30 on whether to re-name their country North Macedonia, a bid to settle a long-running row with Greece and unlock a path to NATO and EU membership AFP/Getty 14/50 29 September 2018 Residents trying to salvage belongings from their homes which collapsed after an earthquake and tsunami hit Palu on Sulawesi island on September 29, 2018. - Nearly 400 people were killed when a powerful quake sent a tsunami barrelling into the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, officials said on September 29, as hospitals struggled to cope with hundreds of injured and rescuers scrambled to reach the stricken region. AFP/Getty 15/50 28 September 2018 Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and German Chancellor Angela Merkel during a press conference in Berlin. Erdogan's official state visit has been met with protests EPA 16/50 27 September 2018 Equatorial Guinea's President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo addresses the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly, at U.N. headquarters AP 17/50 26 September 2018 Members of the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) search for victims after a building collapsed in New Delhi killing five people, the latest incident highlighting India's poor urban planning and construction AFP/Getty 18/50 25 September 2018 US golfer Tiger Woods tees off during a practice session ahead of the 42nd Ryder Cup at Le Golf National Course at Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, south-west of Paris AFP/Getty 19/50 24 September 2018 President Donald Trump and US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, talk with UN secretary general Antonio Guterres during the General Assembly at UN Headquarters AP 20/50 23 September 2018 Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has claimed that his country is "ready to confront America", following an attack on a military parade in Ahvaz in which 25 people were killed. The attack has been blamed by Iranian government and military officials on gulf states that are allied with the US AP 21/50 22 September 2018 Pakistan has invited Saudi Arabia to become a partner in the Beijing funded Belt and Road scheme that will improve and expand Pakistan's infrastructure. The invite comes at the end of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan's two day trip to the Middle Eastern country, where he met with Saudi King Salman EPA 22/50 21 September 2018 A boat has capsized killing at 136 people in Lake Victoria, Tanzania. Rescue operations are ongoing AFP/Getty 23/50 20 September 2018 Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe celebrates after the ruling liberal Democratic Party (LDP) leadership election at the party's headquarters in Tokyo on September 20, 2018. - Prime Minister Shinzo Abe won re-election as leader of his ruling party on September 20, setting him on course to become Japan's longest-serving premier and realise his dream of reforming the constitution. AFP/Getty 24/50 19 September 2018 Los Angeles has moved to ban the sale of fur within its city limits. Speaking at a news conference today, councillor Bob Blumenfield said “this is something that is not just a good legislative win, it’s a moral win”. LA will be the biggest city in the US to ban the sale of fur, as it follows San Francisco, Berkley and others AP 25/50 18 September 2018 South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un wave during a car parade in Pyongyang, North Korea, Reuters 26/50 17 September 2018 Australia has launched a nationwide investigation into needles being hidden in strawberries. Sewing needles have reportedly been found in strawberries in all 6 Australian states and the market is suffering from the resultant fear EPA 27/50 16 September 2018 Typhoon Mangkhut has made landfall in China, bringing winds of 100mph to coastal areas and storm surges of 10 feet in Hong Kong. Pictured here are the smashed windows of an office tower in Hong Kong. Reuters 28/50 15 September 2018 German Police have begun evicting activists from the Hambacher Forest where a protest to protect the remaining section of the ancient forest has been ongoing for the past 6 years. Dozens of activists have been living in treehouses, but are now being forced out after tensions rose between them and energy company RWE, which plans to expand its coal mine further into the remaining woodland AFP/Getty 29/50 14 September 2018 Speaking in Malmo today, the Dalai Lama stated "I think Europe belongs to Europeans" and suggested that refugees should focus on returning home and developing their home countries Reuters 30/50 13 September 2018 Preparations for Hurricane Florence, expected to make land on Friday, continue in North and South Carolina and Viriginia. Over 1 million people have been evacuated leading up to the arrival of the category 4 storm Getty 31/50 12 September 2018 Um Majid, left, tries an improvised gas mask on family members in her home in Binnish in Syria's rebel-held northern Idlib province as part of preparations for any upcoming raids. Fearing government forces and their allies military advance to retake Idlib province, the mother of three learnt from YouTube videos how to make gas masks from charcoal, wood, paper cups, cotton, nylon plastic bags and tapes. According to her, she could manufacture more masks but the material she needs are not always available. She also dug a cave under her home AFP/Getty 32/50 11 September 2018 People waving pro-independence Catalan flags 'Esteladas' while holding letters reading "independence" during a pro-independence demonstration in Barcelona to mark the National Day of Catalonia, the "Diada". Catalan separatists put on a show of strength and unity at celebrations of the region's national day, nearly a year after a failed attempt to break away from Spain. Catalonia's national day, the 'Diada' commemorates the fall of Barcelona in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1714 and the region's subsequent loss of institutions and freedoms AFP/Getty 33/50 10 September 2018 An Indian man makes his way through floodwaters from the overflowing Panchanai River in Siliguri. Continuous rainfall has caused flooding and landslides in parts of Siliguri and surrounding areas, affecting road travel and daily life AFP/Getty 34/50 9 September 2018 Participants wave flowers as they march past a balcony from where North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un was watching, during a mass rally on Kim Il Sung square in Pyongyang. The military parade was held to mark the nations 70th birthday, but refrained from showing off the intercontinental ballistic missiles that have seen it hit with multiple international sanctions AFP/Getty 35/50 8 September 2018 350.Org march for Climate Justice at the Quezon Memorial Circle in Quezon City, Philippines. Rise for Climate protests took places across the world to demand action Leo Sabangan/350.org (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) 36/50 7 September 2018 Displaced Syrians take part in a protest against the regime and its ally Russia at a camp for displaced people in Kafr Lusin near the Bab al-Hawa border crossing with Turkey in Syria's northern Idlib province AFP/Getty 37/50 6 September 2018 An aerial view of houses damaged by a landslide in Atsuma town, Hokkaido prefecture, after an earthquake hit the northern Japanese island. Rescuers scrabbled through mud for survivors after the powerful earthquake sent hillsides crashing down onto homes, killing at least nine people and leaving dozens of people missing AFP/Getty 38/50 5 September 2018 US Capitol Police arrest a protestor as Judge Brett Kavanaugh testifies during the second day of his US Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing to be an Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court. President Donald Trump's newest Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is expected to face punishing questioning from Democrats this week over his endorsement of presidential immunity and his opposition to abortion AFP/Getty 39/50 4 September 2018 Damaged traffic boards and telecommunication relay poles after they were brought down by strong winds caused by typhoon Jebi in Osaka. The strongest typhoon to hit Japan in 25 years made landfall on September 4, the country's weather agency said, bringing violent winds and heavy rainfall that prompted evacuation warnings AFP/Getty 40/50 3 September 2018 Myanmar journalist Kyaw Soe Oo is escorted by police after being sentenced by a court to jail in Yangon. Two Reuters journalists were jailed for seven years for breaching Myanmar's official secrets act during their reporting of the Rohingya crisis, a judge said, a case that has drawn outrage as an attack on media freedom AFP/Getty 41/50 2 September 2018 A Somali soldier walks near the wreckage of vehicles at the scene of a blast outside the compound of a district headquarters in the capital Mogadishu. A Somali police officer says a number of people were wounded after a suicide bomber detonated an explosives-laden vehicle at a checkpoint outside the headquarters after being stopped by security forces AP 42/50 1 September 2018 A Utair-operated Boeing 737-800 which skidded off the runway and caught fire during landing, at Sochi international airport, in the Russian Black Sea resort. Russia's transportation minister says a supervisor at the airport died during the emergency response after a landing airliner careered off the end of the runway, into a riverbed and caught fire. There were no deaths reported among the 164 passengers and six crew members aboard the Utair Boeing 737, but the Russian health ministry said 18 people were injured. The fire was extinguished within eight minutes AP 43/50 31 August 2018 Mourners attend Aretha Franklin's funeral at Greater Grace Temple in Detroit AFP/Getty 44/50 30 August 2018 Firefighters watch on as flames leap from a giant factory fire in the inner Melbourne suburb of West Footscray - More than 120 firefighters are fighting the fire, with 30 trucks and cherry picker aerial appliances on the scene which is sending large plumes of smoke across the city. AFP/Getty 45/50 29 August 2018 People are evacuated after flooding in Swar township, Myanmar Reuters 46/50 28 August 2018 President Hassan Rouhani speaks at the Iranian Parliament in the capital Tehran. It was the first time Rouhani had been summoned by parliament in his five years in power, with MPs demanding answers on unemployment, rising prices and the collapsing value of the rial, which has lost more than half its value since April AFP/Getty 47/50 27 August 2018 A police officer walks by the front of a Chicago Pizza and GLHF Game Bar at the scene of fatal shooting at The Jacksonville Landing. A gunman opened fire at a video game tournament killing multiple people and then fatally shooting himself in a rampage that wounded several others AP 48/50 26 August 2018 Migrants disembark from the Italian Coast Guard ship 'Diciotti' in the port of Catania, Italy. The vessel arrived with 177 migrants on board, but the Italian Interior Ministry denied them to disembark, calling EU member states to find a solution on how to distribute them. On 22 August, 27 unaccompanied minors were let off from the ship, assisted by Red Cross, UNHCR and Save the Children EPA 49/50 25 August 2018 Rohingya refugees during a protest march after attending a ceremony to remember the first anniversary of a military crackdown that prompted a massive exodus of people from Myanmar to Bangladesh, at the Kutupalong refugee camp in Ukhia AFP/Getty 50/50 24 August 2018 US President Donald Trump sits with children during a tour of Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio AFP/Getty 1/50 12 October 2018 Spanish Unionist demonstrators carry Spanish flags during a demonstration on Spain's National Day in Barcelona Reuters 2/50 11 October 2018 Russia has halted all crewed space flights following the failed launch of the Soyuz MS-10 rocket (pictured). Investigations in to the rocket's malfunction are ongoing Reuters 3/50 People look on at a damaged store after Hurricane Michael passed through Panama City, Florida. A Category 4 storm, with maximum sustained winds of 155 mph, was the most powerful storm ever to hit the Florida Panhandle Getty 4/50 9 October 2018 The Darul Muttaqien Mosque was the heart of the community for many in Palu. A lot of the victims were inside their homes or at the mosque when the quake struck. Magareb prayer for many, was their last. Paddy Dowling travelled with UK based charity Muslim Aid to the disaster areas of North Sulawesi to witness the scale of Indonesia’s earthquake & tsunami. They are the only British NGO delivering aid out in Palu through local partners Paddy Dowling 5/50 8 October 2018 People take part in a candle-light vigil in memory of Bulgarian TV journalist Viktoria Marinova in Ruse Reuters 6/50 7 October 2018 Supporters of Jair Bolsonaro, presidential candidate with the Social Liberal Party, celebrate in front of his house during the general elections in Rio. The far-right congressman, who waxes nostalgically about the dictatorship, won the vote but not an outright victory. The second-round-run-off will be between Bolsoanro and the leftist Workers' party Fernando Haddad AP 7/50 6 October 2018 Demonstrators hold a banner that reads "freedom of the press, not allowed to be trampled" and "shame on the governments vindictive move" past a symbolic 'political red line' during a protest after Hong Kong immigration authorities declined a visa renewal for senior Financial Times journalist Victor Mallet, outside the immigration department building in Hong Kong. Hong Kong's decision to effectively blacklist a senior Financial Times journalist required an "urgent explanation", the UK said AFP/Getty 8/50 5 October 2018 Congolese doctor Denis Mukwege and Yazidi campaigner Nadia Murad announced as the winners of the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize. The pair were awarded the honour “for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict.” AFP/Getty/Reuters 9/50 4 October 2018 Dutch security services expel Russian spies over plot targeting chemical weapons watchdog. This picture shows the four GRU officers who entered the Netherlands at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport on April 10, travelling on official Russian passports. On April 13 they parked a car carrying specialist hacking equipment outside the headquarters of the OPCW in The Hague. At that point the Dutch counter-terrorism officers intervened to disrupt the operation and the four GRU officers were ordered to leave the country PA 10/50 3 October 2018 Quake survivors make their way past a washed out passenger ferry in Wani, Indonesia's Central Sulawesi, after an earthquake and tsunami hit the area on September 28. Nearly 1,400 people are now known to have died as UN officials warned the "needs remain vast" for both desperate survivors and rescue teams still searching for victims AFP/Getty 11/50 2 October 2018 US first lady Melania Trump holds a baby during a visit to a hospital in Accra, Ghana. The first lady is visiting Africa on her first big solo international trip, aiming to make child well-being the focus of a five-day, four-country tour Reuters 12/50 1 October 2018 Indian school children dressed like Mahatma Gandhi perform yoga during a event at a school in Chennai ahead of his birth anniversary. Indians all over the country celebrate Gandhi's birthday on October 2 AFP/Getty 13/50 30 September 2018 An Albanian man casts his vote at a polling station in the village of Zajas on September 30, 2018, for a referendum to re-name the country. - Macedonians cast ballots on September 30 on whether to re-name their country North Macedonia, a bid to settle a long-running row with Greece and unlock a path to NATO and EU membership AFP/Getty 14/50 29 September 2018 Residents trying to salvage belongings from their homes which collapsed after an earthquake and tsunami hit Palu on Sulawesi island on September 29, 2018. - Nearly 400 people were killed when a powerful quake sent a tsunami barrelling into the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, officials said on September 29, as hospitals struggled to cope with hundreds of injured and rescuers scrambled to reach the stricken region. AFP/Getty 15/50 28 September 2018 Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and German Chancellor Angela Merkel during a press conference in Berlin. Erdogan's official state visit has been met with protests EPA 16/50 27 September 2018 Equatorial Guinea's President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo addresses the 73rd session of the United Nations General Assembly, at U.N. headquarters AP 17/50 26 September 2018 Members of the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) search for victims after a building collapsed in New Delhi killing five people, the latest incident highlighting India's poor urban planning and construction AFP/Getty 18/50 25 September 2018 US golfer Tiger Woods tees off during a practice session ahead of the 42nd Ryder Cup at Le Golf National Course at Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines, south-west of Paris AFP/Getty 19/50 24 September 2018 President Donald Trump and US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, talk with UN secretary general Antonio Guterres during the General Assembly at UN Headquarters AP 20/50 23 September 2018 Iranian President Hassan Rouhani has claimed that his country is "ready to confront America", following an attack on a military parade in Ahvaz in which 25 people were killed. The attack has been blamed by Iranian government and military officials on gulf states that are allied with the US AP 21/50 22 September 2018 Pakistan has invited Saudi Arabia to become a partner in the Beijing funded Belt and Road scheme that will improve and expand Pakistan's infrastructure. The invite comes at the end of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan's two day trip to the Middle Eastern country, where he met with Saudi King Salman EPA 22/50 21 September 2018 A boat has capsized killing at 136 people in Lake Victoria, Tanzania. Rescue operations are ongoing AFP/Getty 23/50 20 September 2018 Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe celebrates after the ruling liberal Democratic Party (LDP) leadership election at the party's headquarters in Tokyo on September 20, 2018. - Prime Minister Shinzo Abe won re-election as leader of his ruling party on September 20, setting him on course to become Japan's longest-serving premier and realise his dream of reforming the constitution. AFP/Getty 24/50 19 September 2018 Los Angeles has moved to ban the sale of fur within its city limits. Speaking at a news conference today, councillor Bob Blumenfield said “this is something that is not just a good legislative win, it’s a moral win”. LA will be the biggest city in the US to ban the sale of fur, as it follows San Francisco, Berkley and others AP 25/50 18 September 2018 South Korean President Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un wave during a car parade in Pyongyang, North Korea, Reuters 26/50 17 September 2018 Australia has launched a nationwide investigation into needles being hidden in strawberries. Sewing needles have reportedly been found in strawberries in all 6 Australian states and the market is suffering from the resultant fear EPA 27/50 16 September 2018 Typhoon Mangkhut has made landfall in China, bringing winds of 100mph to coastal areas and storm surges of 10 feet in Hong Kong. Pictured here are the smashed windows of an office tower in Hong Kong. Reuters 28/50 15 September 2018 German Police have begun evicting activists from the Hambacher Forest where a protest to protect the remaining section of the ancient forest has been ongoing for the past 6 years. Dozens of activists have been living in treehouses, but are now being forced out after tensions rose between them and energy company RWE, which plans to expand its coal mine further into the remaining woodland AFP/Getty 29/50 14 September 2018 Speaking in Malmo today, the Dalai Lama stated "I think Europe belongs to Europeans" and suggested that refugees should focus on returning home and developing their home countries Reuters 30/50 13 September 2018 Preparations for Hurricane Florence, expected to make land on Friday, continue in North and South Carolina and Viriginia. Over 1 million people have been evacuated leading up to the arrival of the category 4 storm Getty 31/50 12 September 2018 Um Majid, left, tries an improvised gas mask on family members in her home in Binnish in Syria's rebel-held northern Idlib province as part of preparations for any upcoming raids. Fearing government forces and their allies military advance to retake Idlib province, the mother of three learnt from YouTube videos how to make gas masks from charcoal, wood, paper cups, cotton, nylon plastic bags and tapes. According to her, she could manufacture more masks but the material she needs are not always available. She also dug a cave under her home AFP/Getty 32/50 11 September 2018 People waving pro-independence Catalan flags 'Esteladas' while holding letters reading "independence" during a pro-independence demonstration in Barcelona to mark the National Day of Catalonia, the "Diada". Catalan separatists put on a show of strength and unity at celebrations of the region's national day, nearly a year after a failed attempt to break away from Spain. Catalonia's national day, the 'Diada' commemorates the fall of Barcelona in the War of the Spanish Succession in 1714 and the region's subsequent loss of institutions and freedoms AFP/Getty 33/50 10 September 2018 An Indian man makes his way through floodwaters from the overflowing Panchanai River in Siliguri. Continuous rainfall has caused flooding and landslides in parts of Siliguri and surrounding areas, affecting road travel and daily life AFP/Getty 34/50 9 September 2018 Participants wave flowers as they march past a balcony from where North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un was watching, during a mass rally on Kim Il Sung square in Pyongyang. The military parade was held to mark the nations 70th birthday, but refrained from showing off the intercontinental ballistic missiles that have seen it hit with multiple international sanctions AFP/Getty 35/50 8 September 2018 350.Org march for Climate Justice at the Quezon Memorial Circle in Quezon City, Philippines. Rise for Climate protests took places across the world to demand action Leo Sabangan/350.org (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) 36/50 7 September 2018 Displaced Syrians take part in a protest against the regime and its ally Russia at a camp for displaced people in Kafr Lusin near the Bab al-Hawa border crossing with Turkey in Syria's northern Idlib province AFP/Getty 37/50 6 September 2018 An aerial view of houses damaged by a landslide in Atsuma town, Hokkaido prefecture, after an earthquake hit the northern Japanese island. Rescuers scrabbled through mud for survivors after the powerful earthquake sent hillsides crashing down onto homes, killing at least nine people and leaving dozens of people missing AFP/Getty 38/50 5 September 2018 US Capitol Police arrest a protestor as Judge Brett Kavanaugh testifies during the second day of his US Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing to be an Associate Justice on the US Supreme Court. President Donald Trump's newest Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh is expected to face punishing questioning from Democrats this week over his endorsement of presidential immunity and his opposition to abortion AFP/Getty 39/50 4 September 2018 Damaged traffic boards and telecommunication relay poles after they were brought down by strong winds caused by typhoon Jebi in Osaka. The strongest typhoon to hit Japan in 25 years made landfall on September 4, the country's weather agency said, bringing violent winds and heavy rainfall that prompted evacuation warnings AFP/Getty 40/50 3 September 2018 Myanmar journalist Kyaw Soe Oo is escorted by police after being sentenced by a court to jail in Yangon. Two Reuters journalists were jailed for seven years for breaching Myanmar's official secrets act during their reporting of the Rohingya crisis, a judge said, a case that has drawn outrage as an attack on media freedom AFP/Getty 41/50 2 September 2018 A Somali soldier walks near the wreckage of vehicles at the scene of a blast outside the compound of a district headquarters in the capital Mogadishu. A Somali police officer says a number of people were wounded after a suicide bomber detonated an explosives-laden vehicle at a checkpoint outside the headquarters after being stopped by security forces AP 42/50 1 September 2018 A Utair-operated Boeing 737-800 which skidded off the runway and caught fire during landing, at Sochi international airport, in the Russian Black Sea resort. Russia's transportation minister says a supervisor at the airport died during the emergency response after a landing airliner careered off the end of the runway, into a riverbed and caught fire. There were no deaths reported among the 164 passengers and six crew members aboard the Utair Boeing 737, but the Russian health ministry said 18 people were injured. The fire was extinguished within eight minutes AP 43/50 31 August 2018 Mourners attend Aretha Franklin's funeral at Greater Grace Temple in Detroit AFP/Getty 44/50 30 August 2018 Firefighters watch on as flames leap from a giant factory fire in the inner Melbourne suburb of West Footscray - More than 120 firefighters are fighting the fire, with 30 trucks and cherry picker aerial appliances on the scene which is sending large plumes of smoke across the city. AFP/Getty 45/50 29 August 2018 People are evacuated after flooding in Swar township, Myanmar Reuters 46/50 28 August 2018 President Hassan Rouhani speaks at the Iranian Parliament in the capital Tehran. It was the first time Rouhani had been summoned by parliament in his five years in power, with MPs demanding answers on unemployment, rising prices and the collapsing value of the rial, which has lost more than half its value since April AFP/Getty 47/50 27 August 2018 A police officer walks by the front of a Chicago Pizza and GLHF Game Bar at the scene of fatal shooting at The Jacksonville Landing. A gunman opened fire at a video game tournament killing multiple people and then fatally shooting himself in a rampage that wounded several others AP 48/50 26 August 2018 Migrants disembark from the Italian Coast Guard ship 'Diciotti' in the port of Catania, Italy. The vessel arrived with 177 migrants on board, but the Italian Interior Ministry denied them to disembark, calling EU member states to find a solution on how to distribute them. On 22 August, 27 unaccompanied minors were let off from the ship, assisted by Red Cross, UNHCR and Save the Children EPA 49/50 25 August 2018 Rohingya refugees during a protest march after attending a ceremony to remember the first anniversary of a military crackdown that prompted a massive exodus of people from Myanmar to Bangladesh, at the Kutupalong refugee camp in Ukhia AFP/Getty 50/50 24 August 2018 US President Donald Trump sits with children during a tour of Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio AFP/Getty The Myanmar navy said the empty cargo ship was being tugged to a ship-breaking plant in Bangladesh when bad weather caused it to become detached. State-run media in the country said ship was originally destined for a ship-breaking factory in Bangladesh. Unseaworthy vessels are often taken to the port of Chittagong in the country once they have come to the end of their working lives. The Marine Traffic website, which logs the movements of global shipping, states the ship is 177m (580ft) long and was built in 2001. It also records the vessel’s last recorded position as in the South China Sea off the west coast of Taiwan, although that was back in 2009. The Sam Ratulangi is not the first ghost ship to be found in Asian waters. In recent years a number of suspicious boats have been found drifting off the shores of Japan. Many of these vessels were found empty or with only corpses on board, but a handful have been found with North Korean crew members still alive inside. Unlike the massive vessel in Myanmar, these “ships” were mainly smaller fishing boats. Commentators speculated that the North Korean regime’s increasingly ambitious demands from its fishing fleet were forcing crews further and further out to sea in search of fish, placing them at risk. ||||| Image copyright Yangon Police/Facebook Image caption The Sam Ratulangi PB 1600, built in 2001, is more than 177m long Myanmar officials investigating a "ghost ship" found mysteriously drifting near the Yangon region this week have found the answer to its fate. The large, empty and rusty container vessel, Sam Ratulangi PB 1600, had been discovered by fishermen off Myanmar's commercial capital. The navy now say the freighter was being towed by a tugboat headed to a ship-breaking factory in Bangladesh. However, the crew abandoned the ship after being caught up in bad weather. Authorities and navy personnel had boarded the Sam Ratulangi PB 1600 on Thursday to search for clues after it ran aground on a beach. Police and observers were baffled at how such a large ship, with no sailors or goods on board, had ended up in Myanmar. Image copyright Yangon Police/Facebook Image caption The container ship was described as being in a working condition The vessel, which was built in 2001, is more than 177 metres (580 ft) long, according to the Marine Traffic website, which logs the movements of ships around the world. The ship's location was last recorded off the coast of Taiwan in 2009, and this was the first reported instance of an abandoned ship appearing in Myanmar's waters, according to the AFP news agency. On Saturday, Myanmar's navy said it suspected the ship had been towed by another ship after "two cables... were found at its head". They later found a tugboat, called Independence, about 80km (50 miles) off Myanmar's coast. After questioning the 13 Indonesian crew members on board, they learned that the tugboat had been towing the vessel since 13 August, and intended to take it to a factory in Bangladesh that would dismantle and salvage the ship. However, some of the cables attached to the boat broke in bad weather, and they decided to abandon the ship. The authorities are investigating further. The owner of the tugboat is thought to be from Malaysia, news site Eleven Myanmar reports. Bangladesh has a large ship-breaking industry - with hundreds of old commercial vessels dismantled in Chittagong each year. But the business is controversial - with critics saying the work is poorly regulated and dangerous to labourers.

An empty "ghost ship" was found drifting near Myanmar's Yangon region last week, and authorities have now solved the mystery. The rusty freighter was being towed to a ship-breaking factory in Bangladesh, but the tugboat crew got caught in bad weather and abandoned it after several cables securing it to the tugboat broke, the BBC reports. Fishermen spotted it, and after it ran aground on a sandbar, officials and navy personnel boarded the large container vessel—it's more than 580 feet long—Thursday. They determined it is the Sam Ratulangi PB 1600, built in 2001, the Independent reports. Authorities located the tugboat involved and the investigation is ongoing.

John Raoux / AP An FBI investigator walks to the apartment where a man was shot by an FBI agent, on May 22, in Orlando, Fla. Dead Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev and another man — who was killed by the FBI on Wednesday — murdered three people in Massachusetts after a drug deal went wrong in 2011, law enforcement sources tell NBC News. Sources say that what began as a drug ripoff ended in a triple homicide when Tsarnaev and friend Ibragim Todashev realized their victims would later be able to identify them. Todashev was killed by a federal agent while giving a statement on his role on Wednesday in Orlando, Fla. The man who was shot, Todashev, 27, allegedly attacked an agent with a knife while confessing to the slayings. He was not suspected of having played any role in the bombing that killed three people and injured scores more in April, but he did confess to being involved in a brutal Boston-area slaying two years ago, investigators said. AP Photo / Orange County Corrections Department In this May 4, 2013 police mug provided by the Orange County Corrections Department in Orlando, Fla., shows Ibragim Todashev after his arrest for aggravated battery in Orlando. Law enforcement officials said Todashev was being questioned as part of the FBI’s effort to find and talk to anyone who had any contact with Tsarnaev, the older bombing suspect killed in a shootout with police. The shooting occurred in the early morning hours on Wednesday, the FBI said in a statement. “The agent, two Massachusetts State Police troopers, and other law enforcement personnel were interviewing an individual in connection with the Boston Marathon bombing investigation when a violent confrontation was initiated by the individual,” the statement said. “During the confrontation, the individual was killed and the agent sustained non-life threatening injuries,” according to the statement. It's not clear who shot Todashev, officials say, because -- while he was being questioned by an FBI agent -- officers from the Massachusetts state police and the Orlando police department were also present in the house where the interrogation was going on. Todashev, they say, had spent some time in the Boston area, where he was a mixed martial arts fighter, and knew Tsarnaev there. Investigators say he confessed to the agent in Florida that he played a role in a triple murder in 2011 in which three men were discovered slain in an apartment in Waltham, Mass. Brendan Mess, 25; Raphael Teken, 37; and Eric Weissman, 31, were found with their throats cut in September of 2011, and their bodies were covered with marijuana. No suspects had been arrested in that case. A spokesperson for the Middlesex County District Attorney’s office, which is investigating the three deaths, said that the office does not discuss ongoing investigations. Relatives for the three men did not immediately return requests for comment. Officials say FBI agents were questioning Todashev on Tuesday. He was cooperative at first, they say, but later that night, he attacked the agent with a knife. Officials say Todashev became violent as he was about to sign a written statement based on his confession. A man officials say knew the bombing suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was shot and killed in Orlando, Fla., when he allegedly attacked an FBI agent who traveled to Orlando to interview him. NBC's Pete Williams reports. The officials say Todashev had some connections with radical Chechen rebels, but they say it's not clear whether he had any role in radicalizing Tsarnaev. A friend of Todashev told NBC News affiliate WESH that he was being questioned along with the man who was shot due to their connections to the mixed martial arts community in Boston. “They were talking to us, both of us, right? And they said they need him for a little more, for a couple more hours, and I left, and they told me they’re going to bring him back. They never brought him back,” friend Khusn Taramiv, 27, told WESH. Todashev was arrested for aggravated battery on May 4, 2013 after getting into a fight over a parking spot with another man at Premium Outlets in Orlando, according to an Orange County Sheriff’s Office arrest affidavit. Todashev said that he pushed the other man after he “got into his face,” according to the affidavit. The man’s son then “came at him swinging,” Todashev told police. The 5’9”, 160-pound Todashev admitted to police that he was a former mixed martial arts fighter, according to the arrest affidavit. “This skill puts his fighting ability way above that of a normal person,” the arresting officer wrote in the affidavit. Todashev was transported to the booking and release center without incident, according to the affidavit. His Miranda warning was read but not invoked, the document says. He was released May 5 on a $3,500 surety bond, according to the Orange County Corrections Department. The man was born in Russia and had U.S. citizenship, according to the affidavit. A spokesman for the Orlando Police Department referred all questions regarding the shooting to the FBI. An FBI incident review team was dispatched from Washington, D.C., and was expected to arrive in Orlando within 24 hours, FBI Special Agent Dave Couvertier said on Wednesday morning. Todashev was also arrested in downtown Boston in 2010 following a fender bender involving his van and a car carrying two women. Todashev had to be restrained by witnesses after he aggressively confronted the women, the Suffolk County District Attorney's office told NBC affiliate WHDH. Witnesses said Todashev was clearly the aggressor, and there was physical contact between everyone involved. However, authorities say there were no injuries and no charges were pressed. Todashev had been in the country since 2006. Related: NBC's Andrew Rafferty contributed to this report This story was originally published on ||||| Updated at 7:43 p.m. ET A friend of Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev implicated himself and Tsarnaev in an unsolved triple homicide before authorities say he instigated a violent confrontation that resulted in his death early Wednesday morning, CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reported. The shooting happened inside an Orlando apartment complex as an FBI agent and Massachusetts State Police detectives were questioning Ibragim Todashev about his friendship with Tsarnaev. Boston bombing suspects Orlando shootout tied to Boston bomb suspect Law enforcement sources said the two Chechen immigrants once trained together at a Boston area gym. But evidence also suggests a criminal connection, involvement in a grisly triple murder that occurred in September 2011, in Waltham, Massachusetts. Three men, including one who trained at the same gym, were found with their throats cut, their bodies had been covered with marijuana and thousands of dollars in cash. No one has been charged. But sources say during questioning Tuesday night, Todashev implicated himself and Tamerlan Tsarnaev in the killings. As investigators pushed at him towards a confession, he snapped, reported Orr. Law enforcement officials say the 27-year-old mixed martial arts fighter made a move that threatened the investigators. The FBI agent, who suffered cuts in the altercation, shot and killed Todashev. The FBI became interested in him after phone records suggested a connection to Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Over several weeks agents kept tabs on Todashev and questioned him a handful of times. The FBI found nothing connecting Todashev to the Boston attacks. The boxing career of Tamerlan Tsarnaev Todashev, who lived in the u.s. for the past several years, was arrested two weeks ago on an aggravated battery charge. But now investigators want to find out if he had any connections at all to anything worse, including radical extremists overseas. Earlier, CBS News senior correspondent John Miller reported that Todashev was a mixed-martial-arts fighter. Fighting was at least one interest that Todashev shared with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who was once a boxer. Miller also reported that Todashev had been to Chechnya before and was scheduled to return to Chechnya this week but canceled his flight. ||||| Story highlights Dead Boston bombing suspect implicated in 2011 killings, official says Another man, Ibragim Todashev, attacks FBI agent with a knife, is killed Todashev had admitted to a role in a 2011 triple murder in Massachusetts Authorities told him not to take a pending flight to Chechnya Deceased Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev participated in a 2011 gruesome triple homicide outside Boston along with a Chechen killed early Wednesday during a confrontation with the FBI and Massachusetts State Police in Orlando, Florida, a federal law enforcement official told CNN. Ibragim Todashev, who died during the interview with authorities, not only confessed to his direct role in slashing the throats of three people in Waltham, Massachusetts, but also fingered Tsarnaev in the deaths, the official said Wednesday. Todashev was being questioned about the slayings and his acquaintance with Tsarnaev. Todashev attacked an FBI agent, who shot him dead, a federal law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the case told CNN. "He used some kind of weapon," the official said, and that prompted the FBI agent to shoot the suspect. Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Dias Kadyrbayev, left, with Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsamaev in a picture taken from the social media site VK.com. Kadyrbayev is expected to plead guilty August 21 to charges in connection with removing a backpack and computer from Tsamaev's dorm room after the April 2013 bombing, according to a defense lawyer. Hide Caption 1 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed during the shootout with police in Watertown, Massachusetts, on April 19, 2013. He is pictured here at the 2010 New England Golden Gloves. Hide Caption 2 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured in a Boston suburb on April 19, 2013, after a manhunt that shut down the city. In July, he pleaded not guilty to killing four people and wounding more than 200. Hide Caption 3 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – From left, Azamat Tazhayakov and Dias Kadyrbayev went with Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to Times Square in this photo taken from the social media site VK.com. A federal grand jury charged Tazhayakov and Kadyrbayev with obstructing justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice relating to the removal of a backpack from Tsarnaev's dorm room after the bombings. Tazhayakov was convicted of conspiracy and obstruction charges in July 2014. He faces up to 25 years in prison at his sentencing in October. He has filed an appeal. Hide Caption 4 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Robel Phillipos, a U.S. citizen, was also arrested on May 1, 2013 . He was charged with lying to federal agents about the bombing, according to court papers. Hide Caption 5 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Phillipos, Tazhayakov and Kadyrbayev are accused of removing items from Tsarnaev's dorm room after the bombings on April 15, 2013. The items they took included a backpack containing fireworks that had been "opened and emptied of powder," according to the affidavit. Hide Caption 6 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – The FBI released photos and video on April 18, 2013, of two men identified as Suspect 1 and Suspect 2 in the deadly bombings at the Boston Marathon. They were later identified as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, and his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26. Hide Caption 7 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Boston Police released surveillance images of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at a convenience store on April 19, 2013. Hide Caption 8 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – The FBI tweeted this photo on April 19, 2013, and urged Watertown residents to stay indoors as they searched for the second suspect. Hide Caption 9 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – The FBI released photos and video on April 18, 2013, of two men it called suspects in the deadly bombings and pleaded for public help in identifying them. The men were photographed walking together near the finish line. Hide Caption 10 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – A man identified as Suspect 2 appeared in this photograph by bystander David Green, who took the photo after completing the Boston Marathon. Green submitted the photo to the FBI, he told Piers Morgan in an interview. Hide Caption 11 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – The man identified as Suspect 2 appears in a tighter crop of David Green's photo. Hide Caption 12 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Authorities later identified Suspect 1 as Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Hide Caption 13 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Suspect 2 was identified as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Hide Caption 14 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Suspect 1 walks through the crowd. Hide Caption 15 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Suspect 1 walks through the crowd. Hide Caption 16 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Suspect 1 walks through the crowd. Hide Caption 17 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Both suspects are seen walking through the crowd. Hide Caption 18 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Suspect 2 walks through the crowd. Hide Caption 19 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Suspect 2 walks through the crowd. Hide Caption 20 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – A photo released by the FBI highlights Suspect 2. Hide Caption 21 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – A photo released by the FBI highlights Suspect 2. Hide Caption 22 of 23 Photos: Photos: Suspects tied to Boston bombings Suspects tied to Boston bombings – Suspect 2 walks through the crowd. See all photography related to the Boston bombings. Hide Caption 23 of 23 JUST WATCHED FBI shoots man tied to bombing suspects Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH FBI shoots man tied to bombing suspects 02:04 JUST WATCHED Police: Man linked to Tsarnaev shot Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Police: Man linked to Tsarnaev shot 00:53 A second law enforcement official confirmed Todashev made the confession. The unsolved triple murder received renewed interest after it was learned that Tsarnaev was sparring partners at a local gym with one of the victims. Investigators of the crime reported at the time that the heads of the three victims were pulled back and their throats slit ear to ear with great force. Marijuana was spread over the bodies in a "symbolic gesture," and several thousand dollars in cash was found at the scene. Todashev told investigators the men were killed during a drug ripoff because he and Tsarnaev were afraid they would be able to identify them and tell police what happened, according to a law enforcement source. So far, no link has been found between Todashev and the Boston Marathon bombings. However, the FBI is looking into the many connections between Todashev and Tsarnaev, whose radicalization allegedly led to the Boston bombings. A federal law enforcement official has told CNN they were initially led to Todashev because they learned he knew Tsarnaev and his younger brother, Dzhokhar. They also said cell phone records connected Tamerlan and Todashev. Todashev was being interviewed in the kitchen of his Florida home. He grabbed a knife, which is why fatal force was used, according to a source briefed on the ongoing investigation. "Preliminary information indicates the agent took actions to defend himself," said a federal law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the case. "The agent sustained non-life-threatening injuries," FBI spokesman Jason Pack said. Investigators are awaiting test results to determine whether Todashev's DNA was found at the Massachusetts triple murder scene and whether the DNA of Tamerlan Tsarnaev also was found there. Todashev and Tsarnaev were acquainted through a mixed martial arts center near Boston, said a source briefed on the bombing investigation. In Orlando, an FBI team is reviewing the circumstances of the shooting, a procedure that follows any FBI shooting. Todashev had an impending flight from Orlando, via New York and Moscow, to Chechnya, when investigators sought to interview him, according to a source briefed on the ongoing investigation. He was told not to take the flight, the source said. Details emerged Wednesday about how Todashev had Tsarnaev's phone number in his cell phone, said the source. Both men were members of the mixed martial arts forum Sherdog.com , along with Russian-Canadian boxer-turned-jihadist William Plotnikov, the source said. Last month, CNN reported that Plotnikov and six others died in a July 2012 firefight with Russian forces in the southwestern republic of Dagestan, while Tsarnaev was visiting the region, according to a source briefed on the investigation. Todashev, 27, knew Dzhokhar Tsarnaev , also a suspect in the April 15 bombings, the official said. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, injured and captured after a manhunt, is being held by authorities. His brother died in a shootout with police. Todashev was from the Chechnya region, as were the Tsarnaev brothers, the source said. Todashev was granted political asylum in 2008, but he came to the United States some time before that, a federal law enforcement official told CNN. Todashev had been living in the United States as a legal resident because of that asylum claim. In the 2011 Massachusetts triple homicide, the Middlesex County district attorney's office said at the time that the victims and two unknown perpetrators appeared to know each other and that it was not a random crime. No suspects were named then. A source said that the FBI had been investigating Todashev for about a month. The FBI had followed Todashev for days, his friend told CNN affiliate Central Florida News 13 Todashev "wasn't like real close friends (with Tsarnaev), but he just happened to know him," Khasuen Taramov told the TV station. "But he had no idea that they were up to something like that, like bombings and everything, you know what I mean?" He told CNN affiliate WESH that Todashev and Tsarnaev had spoken by telephone about a month before the bombings. "It was a complete shock to him," Taramov said. The two met a couple years ago in Boston, where Todashev had lived and where there is a small, close-knit community of Chechens, said Taramov. Their telephone conversation before the bombings contained nothing but routine pleasantries, he said. "It was 'How are you doing; how's your family?' That's all." Taramov said he himself was questioned by the FBI for three hours Tuesday night. Asked what he was asked, Taramov said, "Different kind of questions like 'what do you think about bombings,' 'do you know these guys,' blah blah blah, what is my views on certain stuff." He said Todashev was not a radical. "He was just a Muslim. That was his mistake, I guess." Taramov said his friend had told him he had a bad feeling about the direction the investigation was heading. "He felt like there's going to be a setup ... bad setup against him. Because he told me, 'They are making up such crazy stuff, I don't know ... why they doing it. OK, I'm answering the questions, but they are still making up some, like, connections, some crazy stuff. I don't know why they are doing it.' " Before meeting with the FBI for a 7:30 p.m. interview Tuesday, Taramov said, his friend asked him to take his parents' telephone numbers. "He just told me, 'Take the numbers, in case something happens, if I get locked up, or whatever, call them.' You know what I mean? "We were expecting to get him locked up, but not getting him killed. I can't believe it." Todashev was unemployed and had been living on insurance money he received after surgery for an accident. "He used to be a fighter, MMA fighter," Taramov said, in a reference to mixed martial arts. Todashev was arrested this month on a charge of aggravated battery after getting into a fight over a parking spot with a man and his son outside an Orlando mall. The son was taken to a hospital with head injuries, a split upper lip and several teeth knocked out of place, the Orange County Sheriff's Office said in a report. "Todashev said he was only fighting to protect his knee because he had surgery in March," the report said. He told the police that he was a former mixed martial arts fighter, it said. Todashev, described as 5-foot-9 and 160 pounds, was released on $3,500 bond. Asked about the incident, Taramov downplayed it. "He had a fight in the parking lot, the two guys jumped on him ... pretty much he just defended himself against two," he told WESH. "The only mistake: he did kick their ass and left." Todashev had recently gotten his green card and had been planning to visit his parents in Chechnya and then return to the United States, but canceled the plans, Taramov said. Now, he added, he was planning to call his friend's parents.

One intriguing detail has emerged regarding the death of Tamerlan Tsarnaev's friend during FBI questioning. Various outlets including CNN, CBS, and NBC are reporting that while Ibragim Todashev appeared to have had nothing to do with the Boston Marathon bombing, he did admit to helping Tamerlan kill three men during a botched robbery in 2011. Todashev was about to sign a confession when he lunged with a knife at an FBI agent, sources tell NBC. The agent then shot him to death. The triple homicide has gone unsolved for two years, but investigators gave it renewed scrutiny when it emerged after the bombing that Tamerlan knew one of the victims well. As the sources in the news stories tell it, the 27-year-old Todashev said he and Tamerlan went there to rob the trio during a drug deal and decided to kill them as well so they couldn't be identified.

Ten head injury lawsuits filed against the NCAA were consolidated into one federal class-action suit in Chicago, where a settlement was announced Tuesday. In all of the lawsuits combined, dozens of plaintiffs who said they suffered concussions playing contact sports in college are named. Here are some of their stories: FILE - In this Jan. 4, 2009 file photo, Maine's Kyle Solomon (12) chases after New Hampshire's Kevin Kapstad, (5) during an NCAA college hockey game in Orono, Maine. Solomon is one of the plaintiffs in... (Associated Press) Adrian Arrington, former Eastern Illinois football player Arrington, a strong safety at Eastern Illinois from 2006 to 2009, initiated the first lawsuit in 2011. Arrington says he suffered five concussions playing for EIU — some so severe that he couldn't recognize his parents later in the day. In one deposition, he describes bouts of depression, memory loss, seizures and migraine headaches that made it impossible to work or to adequately care for his three young children. He never would have played college football, he insists, had he foreseen the health consequences. Angela Palacios, former Ouachita Baptist soccer player Palacios suffered a concussion during soccer practice at Ouachita Baptist in Arkadelphia, Arkansas, when she and a teammate collided heads as they went for the ball. Days later when she said she didn't feel well enough to practice, she says one coach reacted angrily, accusing her of not "being a team player." She began playing at the school in 2010, but left a year later because of head injury issues. She said she joined the lawsuit because, "I don't want anyone to have to go through what I went through. ... The physical and emotional damages that I had to experience." Derek K. Owens, former Central Arkansas football player Owens played wide receiver at Central Arkansas and also excelled academically. But after several concussions, he found he could no longer retain what he'd just studied. According to filings, "He would study for tests, but if he went to sleep he would forget what he had studied, so he started making himself stay up all night out of fear of failing (academically)." His symptoms became so debilitating he dropped out of school in 2011, telling his mother, "I feel like a 22-year-old with Alzheimer's." Kyle Solomon, former Maine ice hockey player Solomon suffered multiple concussions as a forward for Maine's ice hockey team from 2008 to 2010. One happened during a nationally televised game in 2009, when he was slammed into the boards and blacked out, according to filings. After receiving seven stitches in the locker room, he returned to the game in the final period. Citing injuries, he left the team his sophomore season. In a deposition, he said his symptoms included depression, crippling migraines, short-temperedness and what he described as an "inability to deal with everyday tasks." Stanley Doughty, former South Carolina football player Doughty, a defensive tackle at South Carolina from 2003 to 2006, describes how he was returned to a 2004 game after a devastating hit left him momentarily paralyzed; he rested for just five minutes in a locker room before going back into the game. After leaving school, the NFL's Kansas City Chiefs signed him as an undrafted free agent but then quickly let him go. According to court filings, they told him he had a serious spinal injury associated with helmet-to-helmet collisions. ____ Sources: Court filings, AP archives. ||||| FILE - In this Sept. 1, 2005 file photo, South Carolina's Stanley Doughty (55) celebrates with his teammates after stopping Central Florida from scoring during an NCAA college football game in Columbia,... (Associated Press) CHICAGO (AP) — The NCAA has agreed to settle a class-action head injury lawsuit by creating a $70 million fund to diagnose thousands of current and former college athletes to determine if they suffered brain trauma playing football, hockey, soccer and other contact sports, The Associated Press has learned. College sports' governing body also agreed to implement a single return-to-play policy spelling out how all teams must treat players who received head blows, according to a Tuesday filing in U.S. District Court in Chicago obtained by the AP. Critics have accused the NCAA of giving too much discretion to hundreds of individual schools about when athletes can go back into games, putting them at risk. Unlike a proposed settlement in a similar lawsuit against the NFL, this deal stops short of setting aside money to pay players who suffered brain trauma. Instead, athletes can sue individually for damages and the NCAA-funded tests to gauge the extent of neurological injuries could establish grounds for doing that. The filing serves as notice to the federal judge overseeing the class-action case that the parties struck a deal after nearly a year of negotiations. In addition to football, ice hockey and soccer, the settlement also applies to all men and women who participated in basketball, wrestling, field hockey and lacrosse. There is no cutoff date for when athletes must have played a designated sport at one of the more than 1,000 NCAA member schools to qualify for the medical exams. That means all athletes currently playing and those who participated decades ago could undergo the tests and potentially follow up with damage claims. To keep the NCAA from having to hold unwieldy talks with multiple plaintiffs, 10 lawsuits filed from Georgia and South Carolina to Minnesota and Missouri were consolidated into the one case in Chicago, where the first lawsuit was filed in 2011. Combined, the suits identified several dozen athletes by name as having suffered brain trauma. The lead plaintiff is Adrian Arrington, a former safety at Eastern Illinois. He said he endured five concussions while playing, some so severe he has said he couldn't recognize his parents afterward. Subsequent headaches, memory loss, seizures and depression made it difficult to work or even care for his children, filings said. Another named plaintiff is former Central Arkansas wide receiver Derek K. Owens. After several concussions, he said he found he could no longer retain what he had just studied. His symptoms became so severe he dropped out of school in 2011, telling his mother: "I feel like a 22-year-old with Alzheimer's." Among other settlement terms, all athletes will take baseline neurological tests to start each year to help doctors determine the severity of any concussion during the season; concussion education will be mandated for coaches and athletes; and a new, independent Medical Science Committee will oversee the medical testing. The NCAA admits no wrongdoing in the settlement and has denied understating the dangers of concussions. As proof it has tried to mitigate the risks, it has cited recent changes in equipment, medical practices and playing rules, including ones prohibiting football players from targeting an opponent's head or neck. The NCAA also announced in May a three-year, $30 million concussion study co-funded by the U.S. Defense Department. Plans call for initial data collection on about 7,200 athletes from 12 colleges, increasing to 37,000 athletes at 30 sites, with the aim of better understanding concussions and developing better prevention methods. The settlement is still subject to approval by U.S. District Judge John Lee, in a process that could take months. He must grant preliminary approval and then, after affected athletes weigh in, give a final OK. Plaintiffs' filings say the number of athletes who may require testing to learn if they suffered long-term damage runs into the tens of thousands. They cite NCAA figures that from 2004 to 2009 alone, 29,225 NCAA athletes suffered concussions — about 16,000 in football, 5,751 in women's soccer and 3,374 in men's soccer. Internal emails unsealed in the lawsuit illustrate how pressure mounted on the NCAA over the issue. In a Feb. 23, 2010, email, the NCAA's director of government relations, Abe Frank, wondered about debates elsewhere, including in Congress, about recommended new safeguards for young children playing contact sports. "Do you think this renewed emphasis on youth sports will increase the pressure on the NCAA to do more at the college level?" he asks in the email sent to the NCAA's then-director of health and safety. David Klossner responded bluntly a few hours later. "Well since we don't currently require anything all steps are higher than ours," he wrote. Later that year, the NCAA did establish a new head-injury policy that requires each school to have a concussion management plan on hand and it states that athletes should be kept from play for at least a day after a concussion; it also requires players to sign a statement "accepting responsibility for reporting their injuries." But plaintiffs argued schools put too much of the onus on athletes with little understanding of concussions to self-report injuries. And they blamed a tendency of some teams to hurry concussed players back into games according to patchy, uneven plans and the NCAA's lax enforcement of the concussions policy. In a 2012 deposition, Klossner conceded the NCAA provides virtually no oversight of concussion management plans and that schools aren't required to submit them to the NCAA. Asked if any schools had been disciplined for having subpar plans, Klossner said, "Not to my knowledge." Prior to the settlement, plaintiffs were scathing about how the NCAA handled the head injury issue for decades. Instead of adopting stricter protections for athletes, the lawsuit said the NCAA chose "to sacrifice them on an altar of money and profits," an approach that occurred even though the NCAA had known for at least a decade "of the correlation between concussions and depression, dementia and early onset Alzheimer's disease." The plaintiffs cited a 2010 internal NCAA survey that found almost half of college trainers put athletes with signs of a concussion back into the same game. ___ Follow Michael Tarm on Twitter at http://twitter.com/mtarm ||||| Photo Advertisement Continue reading the main story The N.C.A.A. has reached a preliminary settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought by former college athletes to institute wide-ranging reforms to its head-injury policies. The settlement is the latest attempt by the N.C.A.A. to address concerns over athletes’ rights. It brings a significant change in the care and safety of all current and former college athletes — male and female, in all sports and across each division — including a $70 million medical monitoring fund and a new national protocol for head injuries sustained by players during games and practices. “This offers college athletes another level of protection, which is vitally important to their health,” Steve Berman, the lead plaintiffs’ lawyer, said. “Student-athletes — not just football players — have dropped out of school and suffered huge long-term symptoms because of brain injuries. Anything we can do to enhance concussion management is a very important day for student-athletes.” The settlement does not provide financial compensation for injuries but allows for individual players to sue for damages. It was filed in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois on Tuesday morning, and it still requires the approval of Judge John Z. Lee. At least one plaintiffs’ lawyer involved in the case criticized the agreement and said he would urge the judge to reject the settlement. Jay Edelson, who represents one of the plaintiffs, called the preliminary agreement terrible and said he conveyed his objections to Lee on Tuesday afternoon. He said the judge gave him 28 days to file a brief putting his concerns in writing. At that point, the judge can ask for more briefs or more testimony before issuing a preliminary ruling. “It totally loses sight of the purpose of the case, which was to compensate people who were badly injured by concussions,” Edelson said. “It’s a great deal for the N.C.A.A., but very scary for the class.” The proposed settlement would establish a medical monitoring fund similar in some ways to the one proposed recently by the N.F.L. and its players. It would give all former college athletes a chance to receive a neurological screening to examine brain functions and any signs of brain damage like chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative brain disease. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Under the settlement, college athletes would preserve their rights to sue their universities or the N.C.A.A. for personal-injury financial damages, though Edelson worried that few would actually be able to bring such claims. Photo “It’s going to be tough to find a lawyer to fight against the N.C.A.A.’s machinery when you’re talking about only $20,000 in damages,” Edelson said. “This is going to snuff out the vast majority of claims.” He added: “Class members are allowed to fill out a questionnaire and then, based on a secret algorithm, they might be allowed to get a test to see if they have concussion-related symptoms. The vast majority of people already know that.” The N.F.L.’s agreement, which is pending approval, seeks to create a fund worth several hundred million dollars to assist former players with treatment for the effects from their brain injuries. The N.C.A.A.’s settlement covers only diagnostic medical expenses. Advertisement Continue reading the main story “There’s not a penny in it for the players,” said Ramogi Huma, the head of the National College Players Association. Under the settlement, the N.C.A.A. would also prevent athletes who have sustained a concussion from returning to a game or practice that day. Trained medical personnel would be required at all contact sports events like football, lacrosse, basketball, soccer and wrestling. “This agreement’s proactive measures will ensure student-athletes have access to high-quality medical care by physicians with experience in the diagnosis, treatment and management of concussions,” Brian Hainline, the chief medical officer of the N.C.A.A., said. Huma countered that many of the guidelines were subject to the N.C.A.A.’s rule-making process. “Even if they become official N.C.A.A. guidelines, they will be unenforceable,” he said. While there are some 20,000 former N.F.L. players affected by the potential settlement with the league, there are close to four million former college athletes, 1.4 million of them in contact sports. Their experiences vary drastically, Berman said, making monetary damages difficult to address. “It’s hard to create one class that includes swimmers and football players, given how different their athletic careers are,” said Berman, who added that the N.C.A.A., too, wanted only to discuss policy changes rather than financial rewards. “We felt individuals remain best off bringing individual suits, which they can still do.” Several cases criticizing the N.C.A.A.’s handling of concussions began in 2011 when the former Eastern Illinois football player Adrian Arrington said the N.C.A.A. had been negligent in educating and protecting him after he sustained multiple concussions. Derek Owens, a wide receiver at Central Arkansas, soon brought his own suit, as did a female soccer player and a hockey player. A number of similar lawsuits were consolidated earlier this year. According to N.C.A.A. documents uncovered during discovery, there were more than 30,000 concussions at colleges from 2004 to 2009. Describing the organization’s concussion policy, David Klossner, the N.C.A.A.’s director of health and safety, wrote in a 2010 email to a colleague: “Since we don’t currently require anything all steps are higher than ours.” “A national policy is a very good thing,” said Matthew J. Mitten, the director of the National Sports Law Institute and the former chairman of an N.C.A.A. committee on safety. “We were only able to make simple recommendations, but now there is consensus among the athletic and medical community. The trick will be enforcing it at every school and not just at Ohio State and U.S.C.” Settlement talks occurred during four meetings over the last year (three with the same judge who mediated the N.F.L.’s concussion settlement). Other terms of the agreement include $5 million for concussion research, to be funded by the N.C.A.A. and its member universities (the $70 million monitoring fund would be paid for by the N.C.A.A. and its insurers). Increased concussion tracking by universities and a preseason baseline test for every athlete would also be required. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main story To qualify for a neurological exam, former athletes must complete a questionnaire designed by a team of neurologists and concussion experts. Should players qualify and need additional treatment, they can seek it through their own insurance or file a damages claim. Owens and Arrington, for example, will continue their suits against the N.C.A.A. “I don’t think there’s been much done in this regard before,” said Owens, who said he continues to have anxiety and depression after sustaining multiple concussions during college. “Not only for old washed-up guys like myself, but the current players and all the players who are going to come to school.” Berman said he expected the $70 million would hold up for the life of the 50-year agreement because testing for C.T.E. and other brain diseases should become less expensive. The new diagnostic testing should also eliminate the need for future athletes to need postcareer screenings, he said. “I’m cautiously optimistic,” said Dr. Jeffrey Kutcher, a neurologist at the University of Michigan. “It’s a good step; it’s a needed thing. But C.T.E. is very difficult to diagnose, and the medical monitoring is only as good as the quality of the evaluations these athletes receive.”

The NCAA has reached a deal in a lawsuit brought by former players: The organization will pay to test athletes for brain trauma on the field. Though it admits no wrongdoing in the settlement, the NCAA will establish a $70 million fund to cover the tests, the AP reports. The governing body hasn't agreed to pay injured players directly, but the diagnoses could serve as grounds for future lawsuits against the NCAA by individual players. Current and former players are eligible for the screenings. "It’s hard to create one class that includes swimmers and football players, given how different their athletic careers are," a lawyer for the plaintiffs tells the New York Times. "We felt individuals remain best off bringing individual suits." The deal, which still requires a judge's approval, also lays out rules for dealing with possible concussions as they occur. In the past, players have been put back into games after showing signs of concussions. The new rules would bar victims from playing again the same day and require medical teams at every contact sport event, the Times reports. With the announcement of the settlement, the AP tells some of the plaintiffs' stories, with one player describing how he felt "like a 22-year-old with Alzheimer's" after injuries.

An argument that began inside a midtown Manhattan McDonald's early Monday erupted in gunfire at the steps of a nearby subway entrance when a gunman shot three men, one fatally, near Penn Station, authorities said. The three victims, all men in their 40s, were drinking coffee when a heavy-set man in a black hooded sweatshirt engaged them in a brief conversation, left the restaurant and then waited for them to exit, following the group into a subway station, where he fired four times, New York Police Department Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce said. "The nature of the dispute is being investigated now," he told reporters outside the subway entrance at 35th Street and Eighth Avenue, where a wooden cane could be seen resting on the subway entrance's top steps. Later, Boyce said narcotics may have been a motive for the shooting, saying that police have made 52 arrests so far this year in front of and inside the McDonald's at 35th Street. The shooting occurred in the entrance to the subway, not in the transit system itself, in an area where there are no security cameras, Boyce said. It occurred at about 6 a.m. just two blocks north of Penn Station, one of the nation's busiest transit hubs, as the morning rush was getting underway. A 43-year-old man shot in the neck was pronounced dead at the scene, officials said. A 45-year-old shot in the neck and stomach and a 48-year-old man shot in the thigh were taken to Bellevue Hospital, they said. No arrests had been made and investigators were searching for the gunman and possibly two others who may have fled north on Eighth Avenue in a dark-colored car, officials said. A law enforcement official, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the official wasn't permitted to discuss an ongoing investigation, identified the man who was killed as Angel Quinones. The official identified a man who was shot in the neck and stomach as William Lamboy and the other victim as Eddy Torres. All three men had lengthy arrest records for mostly drug charges, the official said. Torres, who was speaking to detectives, provided much of the narrative to investigators, Boyce said. The other victim, Lamboy, was taken to the hospital in critical condition, officials said. Two men who attend a nearby methadone program at the West Midtown Medical Group, about a half-block from where the shooting took place, said they knew two of the victims, Quinones and Lamboy. They said both men came to the clinic for years. "They were real nice guys, straight guys," said Michael Gessow, 39, of the Bronx, who said he has been coming to the clinic for 10 years. "I can't believe it." Richard Buckley, 59, said he was shocked. "I've been coming here for 14 years, and I've never seen anything like this happen," he said. Samuel Ramsey, the director of operations for West Midtown Medical Group, said his organization had been contacted by police but couldn't comment on the shooting because of medical privacy concerns. He said the outpatient, substance-abuse program, which serves roughly 900 people, has been around for more than 20 years and has no history of violence. The McDonald's where the victims were initially approached by the gunman has become a gathering place of sorts in recent years for former addicts and others who attend substance-abuse programs located in the surrounding area. ||||| NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — One man was killed and two others were wounded in a shooting Monday morning just north of Penn Station. As CBS2’s Matt Kozar reported, murder and mayhem erupted in the middle of Midtown just after 6 a.m. Shots rang out at the entrance to the 34th Street-Penn Station A, C and E subway stop, at West 35th Street and Eighth Avenue. As the evening rush began Monday afternoon, thousands walking to and from work were nervous about what had happened as police continued their search for the gunman. Heavily armed officers rushed to the subway station entrance after a gunman in a hoodie shot and killed a 43-year-old man and wounded two other men – just as the morning rush was getting under way. Police said the shooting appeared to be drug-related, and started with a quarrel between the victims and the gunman inside the McDonald’s at 490 Eighth Ave., just to the south of the subway entrance. “There was an argument in the McDonald’s here at 490 Eighth Avenue between several individuals who were sitting having coffee when another individual with a black hoodie approached them, made some conversation and then left,” NYPD Chief of Manhattan Detectives Robert Boyce told reporters near the crime scene. “Those individuals then walked out of the McDonald’s and into the subway station behind us right now.” That same man followed them to the bottom of the subway stairs, pulled out a gun and started shooting, police said. Cops believe four shots were fired. Witnesses described the scene. “Bunch of police converging on that area right there,” witness Ashton Carter told CBS2’s Diane Macedo. “I stayed around a while longer to see what was going on. I saw two people getting carted up into the ambulances.” The victim who was killed was a 43-year-old man, police said. A 45-year-old man was shot in the neck and torso and is in critical condition at Bellevue Hospital Center. A 48-year-old man was shot in the leg and is also being treated at Bellevue. Joe Ocasio told WCBS 880’s Alex Silverman that his brother was the one who was killed. “He was too good of a man,” he said. “He didn’t bother nobody. His (13-year-old) son was his life.” “He didn’t have a chance to go anywhere,” said Tony Ramos, a friend of the victim who died. “The guy just shot him.” Ramos said his family is now struggling to understand how to move forward. “He was nice, he was a good friend, a good guy,” he said. “Always with his son, always gave everything to his son.” A man named Nick said he knows the victims from a methadone clinic a block away, where he said they all go for heroin treatment. The victims often went to the McDonald’s before the clinic open, 1010 WINS’ Juliet Papa reported. “He’s a really good guy,” Nick said. “The other week, we were in the clinic together. He’s a good dude.” Clinic patient Thomas Hamet said there are “absolutely” heroin deals happening outside the McDonald’s where the quarrel began. He said the McDonald’s itself is a popular place to score drugs. “(Someone says), ‘I’ll give you $15 for three pills,’ you know? And then they’ll go in McDonalds, and everyone keeps an eye out while one person is getting some pills out of her pocketbook, or the guy’s getting the pills out of his bottle, out of his jacket, out of wherever he’s stashing it,” Hamet said. “And the other guy is trying to get the money out.” The McDonald’s was the subject of a lengthy New York Times article back in July. The article by Kim Barker described scenes of people drinking and taking drugs in the open, and an ambulance coming to take away a regular who was stabbed in a nearby doorway – leaving blood on the sidewalk. Locals call the Eighth Avenue store the “zombie McDonald’s” or even the “junkie McDonald’s,” the Times report said. So far this year, police said they have arrested 52 people at the Eighth Avenue McDonald’s. The problem spot frustrates a people who work in the Garment District. “The City of New York lets McDonald’s operate that kind of store knowing there’s that kind of danger there, then McDonald’s should be responsible and the city should close them down,” one neighbor said. CBS2 brought cameras into the nearby methadone clinic to talk to administrations, but was told to leave. The drugs and the shooting are a throwback to the bad old days when the area around Penn Station was not safe. But Mayor Bill de Blasio and police Commissioner Bill Bratton said crime statistics prove otherwise now. “Shootings are down as of 6 o’clock this morning, homicides are up about 19 against last year’s record low number – as the mayor referenced, overall crime at the end of this year. we predict, will be around 3 percent,” Bratton said. “It will be the lowest amount of crime — index crime — ever reported since going back to around 1963, so the city is very safe.” When asked if a reduction in the stop, question and frisk policy has led to more criminals carrying guns, Bratton said he does not believe that is the case. “I don’t believe that criminals feel comfortable walking around the city armed with firearms,” Bratton said. “I think the story that’s being promoted that somehow or other, because we have consciously reduced our activity such as stop, question and frisk; consciously reduced some of our summons activity, that that is emboldening them — I don’t see that.” The area around the subway entrance was sealed off by police for hours after the shooting. A cane could be seen sitting at the top of the steps, Papa reported. Police officials said they are looking for one shooter with possibly two accomplices. Police are also looking for a silver sedan that fled the scene. Late Monday, elected officials issued a letter to Linda Dunham, identified in the letter as the owner of the Eighth Avenue McDonald’s franchise. The letter – issued by Councilman Corey Johnson (D-3rd), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, and state Sens. Brad Hoylman (D-Manhattan) and Adriano Espaillat (D-Manhattan) – made not of “extremely troubling conditions” at the McDonald’s and mentioned the New York Times article focusing on it. “We believe this establishment poses an unacceptable threat to public safety,” the letter said. “Acts of violence, as well as the open purchase, sale and consumption of drugs and alcohol have long been identified with this location.” The letter said officials recognize that Dunham has taken steps to improve security, but they have proved insufficient. Dunham was invited at the letter to discuss the issue with the officials’ offices, and representatives from the NYPD Midtown South Precinct and Manhattan Community Board 5. CBS2 has reached out to McDonald’s for comment, but had not heard back as of late Monday. ||||| The NYPD said it believes a triple shooting that left one dead and two others injured near Penn Station Monday morning is possibly drug-related.The shooting happened just before 6:15 a.m. in the bottom of the subway entrance at West 35th Street and Eighth Avenue. Police said the incident actually started at the McDonald's restaurant next door.Police said three people were sitting inside the McDonald's drinking coffee when two people -- including a heavy-set man in a black hoodie -- walked up and started talking with them. The two left the restaurant, and then the group of three left a short time later. Moments later, police said the two people followed the group of three into the subway stairway and started shooting.In all, police said four shots were fired, and the three men were each hit.A 43-year old man was pronounced dead at the scene after being shot in the head, while the two other victims were rushed to Bellevue Hospital in serious condition. A 45-year-old man was shot in the neck and abdomen, and a 46-year old man was shot in the leg."Right now, we believe the motive is possibly narcotics. It's an active narcotics location, we've made 52 arrests so far this year in front of and inside that McDonald's," NYPD Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce said.Police are looking for a silver vehicle in connection with the shooting that fled north on Eighth Avenue with up to three suspects inside.Here's a look at the scene from NewsCopter 7:Based on surveillance from the McDonald's, it does not appear the victims knew the suspects. Investigators are checking through footage from surveillance cameras.Police said the two men involved in the shooting had their hoods up when they were in the McDonald's, so it is going to be a little tough to identify them at this point.Police said two of the men have been treated at a methadone clinic nearby.There was no current disruption to subway service and Eighth Avenue remained open. West 35th Street was closed Monday morning for the investigation, but it's now back open. ||||| There was mayhem in Midtown during the Monday morning commute when a gunman followed three men into a subway station near Penn Station and started shooting — killing one and wounding two others after a dispute over drugs. In the chaos that followed, the shooter escaped and police were canvassing the area and grilling witnesses at a nearby McDonald’s where the gunman had reportedly gotten into a beef with the victims — and which cops say is a hangout for junkies. “Dude just busts out a gun and, ‘Pow! Pow!’” said shooting witness Joe Sarcone, who said he was walking his wife to a nearby methadone clinic when he saw the gunman draw his weapon and begin firing. “I’m like, ‘What the hell? It’s too early for this.’” Sarcone, 36, said he recognized the gunman as a drug dealer whose turf includes what the locals call the “zombie McDonald’s” on Eighth Ave. south of the 35th St. that figured in the deadly shooting — and another McDonald’s in Union Square. Police said they believe drugs figured into the triple-shooting. Medical examiners remove the body of the man killed in Monday's Penn Station shooting. (Marcus Santos / new York daily News) “Right now we believe the motive is possibly narcotics,” Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce said. “That's an active narcotics location that we've made 52 arrests so far this year in front of and inside that McDonald’s.” Police identified the 43-year-old dead man as Angel Quinones. William Lamboy, 45, was in critical condition at Bellevue Hospital after being shot in the neck and abdomen. The other wounded man, Eddie Torres, 48, was shot in the leg and expected to survive, law enforcement sources said. All were familiar to police. Combined, they have 89 arrests, mainly from drug offenses in the area, plus in Brooklyn and the Bronx, a police source said. NYPD officers at the scene where three men were shot inside a subway station. (Anthony DelMundo/New York Daily News) They were also regulars at the West Midtown Medical Group methadone clinic, which is just a couple blocks from the crime scene, neighborhood residents said. “They were cool cats,” said Edmund Pieters, 52, another member of the clinic. “They would just come down, get their methadone, a coffee and chill. I don’t know what happened. It’s crazy. It’s a whole new world down here at night.” Boyce told reporters the shooting “doesn’t look like it has anything to do with the methadone clinic.” It was a little after 6 a.m. and several people were sipping coffee in the McDonald’s on Eighth Ave. when they had words with the suspected gunman and a pal who then left, said Boyce. Sarcone said the dispute involved about five to seven people standing outside the McDonald’s. “I saw they had beef, arguing,” he said. Police stand outside the McDonald's where the victims reportedly spoke to the gunman. The restaurant is a notorious hangout for drug addicts. (Angus Mordant/for New York Daily News) As the victims left the restaurant, the gunman — now armed with what appeared to be a 9-mm. handgun — followed them to the entrance of a nearby subway station and fired four shots at the bottom of the stairs, Boyce said. “Those three individuals who ended up being shot were followed into the subway,” he said. “We have that on videotape right now. Four shots were fired, striking all three.” When first responders arrived, they found Quinones dead on the steps of the subway entrance and the two wounded men on the street. Witnesses said the shooter — described as a heavyset man wearing a black hoodie — escaped in a silver-colored vehicle around 6:15 a.m. His friend was also wearing a hoodie and it was not immediately clear if he was in the getaway vehicle. Quinones was known in the area as “Memo,” said Alexander Thomas, 50, who said he saw the victims just minutes before the shooting. NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton was on hand to inspect the scene of the shooting. (Anthony DelMundo/New York Daily News) "I saw him in the McDonald's around six,” said Thomas. “I said hello. I said I'd be back and this happened." Thomas said Quinones had been off heroin for more than two years. “He was doing good,” he said. “He wasn't messing with the heroin.” The McDonald’s is a throwback to the bad old days when junkies were a common sight around Penn Station. Regulars jokingly call it a “zombie McDonald’s” because it’s a hangout for addicts. “That McDonald’s always has a lot of junkies around there,” said Sarcone, who is homeless. “Nine out of 10 times it’s always nothing but people trying to get off pills, heroin or trying to cop it, trying to sell it.” The MTA closed the 35th Street and Eighth Ave. exit where the victim was found collapsed, but no service disruptions were reported, spokeswoman Amanda Kwan said. Sign up for BREAKING NEWS Emails privacy policy Thanks for subscribing! With Erin Durkin, Nicole Hensley, Dan Rivoli

Three people were shot, one fatally, near New York City's Penn Station early Monday, CBS New York reports. Three men were seen taking off in a silver vehicle just after 6am from the scene of the shooting at 35th Street and Eighth Avenue, sources tell the New York Daily News. Police were seen going in and out of a subway entrance near the shooting, and bus routes in the area were rerouted as authorities investigated the scene, the News notes. The paper IDs the deceased as a 43-year-old man, while the two injured—a 45-year-old man hit in the neck and abdomen, and a 48-year-old man struck in the leg—were rushed to Bellevue Hospital, according to authorities. The wounded victims are said to be in serious condition with non-life-threatening injuries, cops and fire officials tell ABC News. Although details are still emerging, witnesses say there was an incident inside a nearby McDonald's that may have spilled over into the subway, WABC reports.

Basic training is the initial training provided to military recruits upon entering service into one of the military services. While the program and length of instruction varies somewhat among the services, the intent of the training is to transform male and female recruits from civilians into military service members. Basic training typically consists of physical conditioning; learning the military service’s core values, history and tradition; weapons qualification; instilling discipline; and nuclear, biological, and chemical protection training along with other training needed for initial entry into the services. The training varies in length—typically 6.4 weeks in the Air Force, 9 weeks in the Army and Navy, and 12 weeks in the Marine Corps. Following completion of basic training, recruits attend advanced individual training to further enhance skills in particular areas of interest (military occupational specialties). Upon arriving at a basic training location, recruits are processed and are generally housed for several days in reception barracks pending their assignment to a training unit and their primary barracks for the duration of the basic training period. For the most part, the housing accommodations within existing barracks are typically the same, regardless of male or female occupancy. DOD standards dictate space requirements of 72 square feet of living space per recruit, but the actual space provided is often less than that for the services, particularly during the summer months when a surge of incoming recruits usually occurs. In the Navy and Air Force, male and female recruits are housed on different floors in the buildings. In the Army, Fort Jackson and Fort Leonard Wood are the only locations where both male and female recruits undergo basic training, and they are housed separately in the same buildings, sometimes on the same floor. In the Marine Corps, all female recruits receive basic training at Parris Island, and they are housed in separate barracks. While the barracks across the services differ in design, capacity, and age, it is common for the barracks to have 2 or 3 floors with central bathing areas and several “open bays” housing from 50 to 88 recruits each in bunk beds. Some of the barracks, such as the Army’s “starships” and the Air Force barracks, are large facilities that house over 1,000 recruits. Others, especially those constructed in the 1950s and early 1960s, are smaller with recruit capacities of about 240 or less. Table 1 provides an overall summary of the number and age of the military services’ recruit barracks, along with the number of recruits trained in fiscal year 2001. As shown in the table, the Army has the largest number of barracks—over 60 percent of the total across the services—and trains nearly one-half of the recruits entering the military. The Army also uses temporary barracks, referred to as “relocatables,” to accommodate recruits at locations where capacity is an issue. Figure 1 depicts an exterior view of recruit barracks at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, an “open bay” living space at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island, South Carolina, and an Army temporary (relocatable) barracks at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Until recently, DOD had no readiness reporting system in place for its defense installations and facilities. In fiscal year 2000, DOD reported to the Congress for the first time on installation readiness as an integral element of its overall Defense Readiness Reporting System. At the core of the system is a rating classification, typically referred to as a “C” rating. The C- rating process is intended to provide an overall assessment that considers condition and capacity for each of nine facility classes (e.g., “operations and training,” and “community and housing”) on a military installation. Recruit training barracks fall within the community-and-housing facility class. The definitions for the C-ratings are as follows: C-1—only minor facility deficiencies with negligible impact on capability to perform missions; C-2—some deficiencies with limited impact on capability to perform C-3—significant facility deficiencies that prevent performing some C-4—major facility deficiencies that preclude satisfactory mission accomplishment. Each service has the latitude to develop its own processes in establishing C-ratings for its facilities. The services’ systems for assessing the condition of facilities are: the Army’s Installation Status Report; the Air Force’s Installations’ Readiness Report; the Navy’s Installation Readiness Reporting System; and the Marine Corps’ Commanding Officer’s Readiness Reporting System. These systems generally provide aggregate assessments of the physical condition of facilities based on periodic facility inspections. The Department subsequently aggregates the services’ reports and submits an overall assessment for each facility class to the Congress in the Department’s Quarterly Readiness Report. The majority of the services’ basic training installations had given their recruit barracks a C-3 rating, indicating they have significant deficiencies. Despite the acceptable outward appearance and generally good condition of most barracks’ exteriors, our visits to the training locations confirmed that most barracks had significant (C-3) or major (C-4) deficiencies requiring repair or facility replacement. Our site visits confirmed the existence of significant deficiencies, but we also noted some apparent inconsistencies in service ratings of their facilities’ condition. Conditions varied by location. Among barracks in poor conditions, we observed a number of typical heating and air conditioning, ventilation, and plumbing- related deficiencies that formed the basis of the services’ ratings for their barracks. Base officials told us that, although these deficiencies had an adverse impact on the quality of life for recruits and were a burden on trainers, they were able to accomplish their overall training mission. At the same time, we noted recent improvements had been made to some recruit barracks at various locations. We observed that, overall, the services’ recruit training barracks had significant or major deficiencies, but that conditions of individual barracks vary by location. In general, we observed that the Army’s, Navy’s, and Marine Corps’ Parris Island barracks were in the worst physical condition. Table 2 shows the services’ overall rating assessments for the recruit barracks by specific location and the typical deficiencies in those barracks that form the basis of the ratings. With the exception of Parris Island, all locations reported either C-3 or C-4 ratings for their barracks. These ratings are relatively consistent with the ratings of other facilities within the DOD inventory. Recent defense data show that nearly 70 percent of all DOD facilities are rated C-3 or C-4. Further, as shown in appendix 2, the C-ratings for recruit training barracks are not materially different from the ratings of other facilities at the training locations we visited. The C-ratings depicted in table 2 show the overall condition of the recruit barracks at a specific location, but the condition of any one building within a service and at a specific location could differ from the overall rating. The Army, with the greatest number of barracks, had the most problems. For the most part, the Army’s barracks were in overall poor condition across its training locations, but some, such as a recently renovated barracks at Fort Jackson and a newly constructed reception barracks at Fort Leonard Wood, were in better condition. Similarly, the Navy barracks, with the exception of a newly constructed reception barracks in 2001, were in a similar degraded condition because the Navy, having decided to replace all of its barracks, had limited its maintenance expenditures on these facilities in recent years. Of the Marine Corps locations, Parris Island had many barracks in poor condition, the exception being a recently constructed female barracks. The barracks at San Diego and Camp Pendleton were generally in much better shape. The Air Force’s barracks, particularly five of eight barracks that had recently been renovated, were in generally better condition than the barracks at most locations we visited. Our visits to the basic training locations confirmed that most of the barracks had significant or major deficiencies, but we found some apparent inconsistencies in the application of C-ratings to describe the condition of the barracks. For example, as a group, the barracks at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, were the highest rated—C2—among all the services’ training barracks. The various conditions we observed, however, suggested that they were among the barracks with the worst physical condition we had seen. Marine Corps officials acknowledged that, although they had completed a recent inspection of the barracks and had identified significant deficiencies, the updated data had not yet been entered into the ratings database. As a result, the rating was based on outdated data. On the other hand, the barracks at the Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, were rated C-3, primarily due to noise from the San Diego airport that is next to the depot. Otherwise, our observations indicated that these barracks appeared to be in much better physical condition than those at Parris Island because they were renovating the San Diego barracks. After we completed our work, the Marine Corps revised its Parris Island and San Diego barracks’ ratings to C-4 and C-2, respectively, in its fiscal year 2002 report. The Air Force barracks were rated C-3, but we observed them to be among those barracks in better physical condition and in significantly better condition than the Army barracks that were rated C- 3. And the Navy’s C-4 rating for its barracks was borne out by our visits. Similar to the Marine Corps Parris Island and the Army barracks, we found in general that the Navy barracks were in the worst physical condition. In our discussions with service officials, we learned that the services use different methodologies to arrive at their C-ratings. For example, except the Army, the services use engineers to periodically inspect facility condition and identify needed repair projects. The Army uses building occupants to perform its inspections using a standard inspection form. Further, except the Army, the services consider the magnitude of needed repair costs for the barracks at the training locations in determining the facilities’ C-ratings. While these methodological differences may produce inconsistencies in C-ratings across the services, we did not specifically review the impact the differences may have on the ratings in this assignment. Instead, we are continuing to examine consistency issues regarding service-wide facility-condition ratings as part of our broader ongoing work on the physical condition and maintenance of all DOD facilities. Our visits to all 10 locations where the military services conduct basic training confirm that most barracks have many of the same types of deficiencies that are shown in table 2. The most prevalent problems included a lack of or inadequate heating and air conditioning, inadequate ventilation (particularly in bathing areas), and plumbing-related deficiencies. Inadequate heating or air conditioning in recruit barracks was a common problem at most locations. The Navy’s barracks at Great Lakes, for example, had no air conditioning, and base officials told us that it becomes very uncomfortable at times, especially in the summer months when the barracks are filled with recruits who have just returned from training exercises. During our visit, the temperature inside several of the barracks we toured ran above 90 degrees with little or no air circulation. Base officials also told us that the excessive heat created an uncomfortable sleeping situation for the recruits. At the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at Parris Island, several barracks that had been previously retrofitted to include air conditioning had continual cooling problems because of improperly sized equipment and ductwork. Further, we were told by base officials that a high incidence of respiratory problems affected recruits housed in these barracks (as well as in some barracks at other locations), and the officials suspected mold spores and other contaminants arising from the filtration system and ductwork as a primary cause. At the time of our visit, the Marine Corps was investigating the health implications arising from the air-conditioning system. And, during our tour of a barracks at Fort Sill, Army personnel told us that the air conditioning had been inoperable in one wing of the building for about 2 years. Inadequate ventilation in recruit barracks, especially in central bathing areas that were often subject to overcrowding and heavy use, was another common problem across the services. Many of the central baths in the barracks either had no exhaust fans or had undersized units that were inadequate to expel moisture arising from shower use. As a result, mildew formation and damage to the bath ceilings, as shown in figure 2, were common. In barracks that had undergone renovation, however, additional ventilation had been installed to alleviate the problems. Plumbing deficiencies were also a common problem in the barracks across the services. Base officials told us that plumbing problems—including broken and clogged toilets and urinals, inoperable showers, pipe leaks, and slow or clogged drainpipes and sinks—were recurring problems that often awaited repairs due to maintenance-funding shortages. As shown in figures 3 and 4, we observed leaking drainpipes and broken or clogged bath fixtures in many of the barracks we visited. In regard to the broken fixtures, training officials told us that the problems had exacerbated an undesirable situation that already existed in the barracks—a shortage of fixtures and showers to adequately accommodate the demands of recruit training. These officials told us that because of the inadequate bath facilities for the high number of recruits, they often had to perform “workarounds”—such as establishing time limits for recruits taking showers—in order to minimize, but not eliminate, adverse effects on training time. Base officials at most of the locations we visited attributed the deteriorated condition of the recruit barracks to recurring inadequate maintenance, which they ascribed to funding shortages that had occurred over the last 10 years. Without adequate maintenance, facilities tend to deteriorate more rapidly. In many cases that officials cited, they were focusing on emergency repairs and not performing routine preventative maintenance. Our analysis of cost data generated by DOD’s facility sustainment model showed, for example, that Fort Knox required about $38 million in fiscal year 2002 to sustain its base facilities. However, base officials told us they received about $10 million, or 26 percent, of the required funding. Officials at other Army basic training sites also told us that they receive less funding, typically 30 to 40 percent, than what they considered was required to sustain their facilities. Army officials told us that, over time, the maintenance funding shortfalls at their training bases have been caused primarily by the migration of funding from maintenance accounts to support other priorities, such as the training mission. While most barracks across the services had significant deficiencies, others were in better condition, primarily because they had recently been constructed or renovated. Those barracks that we observed to be in better condition were scattered throughout the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps locations. Even at those locations where some barracks were in very poor condition, we occasionally observed other barracks in much better condition. For example, at Parris Island, the Marine Corps recently completed construction of a new female recruit barracks. At Fort Jackson, the Army repaired windows, plumbing, and roofs in several “starship” barracks and similar repairs were underway in two other starships. Figures 5 and 6 show renovated bath areas at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot at San Diego. The services’ approaches to recapitalize their recruit barracks vary and are influenced by their overall priorities to improve all facilities. The Marine Corps and Air Force are focusing primarily on renovating existing facilities while the Navy plans to construct all new recruit barracks. The Army also expects to renovate and construct recruit barracks, but the majority of the funding needed to support these efforts is not expected to be programmed and available until after 2008 because of the priority placed on improving bachelor enlisted quarters. Table 3 summarizes the services’ recapitalization plans. The Navy has placed a high priority on replacing its 16 recruit barracks by fiscal year 2009 at an estimated cost of $570 million using military construction funds. The Navy recently completed a new recruit reception barracks, and the Congress has approved funding for four additional barracks. Two barracks are under construction with occupancy expected later this year (see fig. 7), and the contract for 2 more barracks was awarded in May 2002. The Navy has requested funds for another 2 barracks in its fiscal year 2003 military construction budget submission and plans to request funds for the remaining 9 barracks in fiscal years 2004 through 2007. The Navy expects construction on the last barracks to be completed by 2009. Navy officials told us that other high-priority Navy-wide efforts (e.g., providing quality bachelor enlisted quarters and housing for sailors while ships are in homeport) could affect the Navy’s recapitalization efforts for recruit barracks. The Army projects an estimated $1.7 billion will be needed to renovate or replace much of its recruit training barracks, but most of the work is long- term over the next 20 years, primarily because renovating and replacing bachelor enlisted quarters has been a higher priority in the near-term. Through fiscal year 2003, the Army expects to spend about $154 million for 2 new barracks—1 each at Fort Jackson and Fort Leonard Wood. Army officials stated that barracks at these locations were given priority over other locations because of capacity shortfalls at these installations. After fiscal year 2003, the Army estimates spending nearly $1.6 billion in military construction funds to recapitalize other recruit barracks—about $359 million to renovate existing barracks at several locations and about $1.2 billion to build new barracks at all locations, except Fort Sill. Only Forts Jackson and Leonard Wood are expected to receive funding for new barracks through fiscal year 2007. Further, the Army does not expect to begin much additional work until after 2008, when it expects to complete the renovation or replacement of bachelor enlisted quarters. As a result, Army officials stated that the remaining required funding for recruit barracks would most likely be requested between 2009 and 2025. The Marine Corps has a more limited recruit barracks recapitalization program, primarily because it has placed a high priority on renovating or replacing bachelor enlisted quarters in the near-term. The three recruit training installations plan to renovate their existing recruit barracks and construct two additional barracks at Parris Island and San Diego. The Marine Corps expects to spend about $40 million in operation and maintenance funds to renovate existing barracks at its training locations by fiscal year 2004. The renovations include replacing the bath and shower facilities, replacing hot water and heating and air conditioning systems, and upgrading the electrical systems. The Marine Corps also expects to spend at least $16 million in military construction for the new barracks by fiscal year 2009. The Air Force has placed a high priority on renovating, rather than replacing its recruit barracks in the near-term. It expects to spend about $89 million—primarily operation and maintenance funds— to renovate its existing barracks and convert another facility for use as a recruit barracks. As of April 2002, the Air Force had renovated 5 of its existing 8 barracks and expected to complete the remaining renovations by 2006. The renovations include upgrading heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning systems as well as installing new windows and improving the central baths. Due to expected increases in the number of recruits, the Air Force has also identified an additional building to be renovated for use as a recruit barracks. The Air Force intends to complete this renovation in fiscal year 2003. Officials at Lackland Air Force Base stated they are currently drafting a new base master plan, which identifies the need to build new recruit barracks starting around 2012. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of Defense. An official from the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment) orally concurred with the information in our report and provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. We performed our work at the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the headquarters of each military service. We also visited each military installation that conducts recruit basic training—Fort Jackson, South Carolina; Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Knox, Kentucky; Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; Fort Sill Oklahoma; Great Lakes Naval Training Center, Illinois; Lackland Air Force Base, Texas; Marine Corps Recruit Deport, Parris Island, South Carolina; Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California; and Camp Pendleton, California. In discussing recruit barracks, we included barracks used to house recruits attending the Army’s One Station Unit Training. This training, which is conducted at select basic training locations for recruits interested in specific military occupational specialties, combines basic training with advanced individual training into one continuous course. To assess the physical condition of recruit barracks, we reviewed the fiscal year 2000 and 2001 installation readiness reports and supporting documentation for the ten installations that conduct basic training. We also toured several barracks at each installation and photographed conditions of the barracks. Finally, we interviewed officials at the services’ headquarters and each installation regarding the process used to inspect facilities, collect information to support the condition rating, and the underlying reasons for the current condition of the facilities. To determine the services’ plans to sustain and recapitalize recruit barracks, we reviewed the services’ plans for renovating its existing barracks and constructing new barracks. In addition, we interviewed officials in the headquarters of each service responsible for managing installations and programming operation and maintenance and military construction funds. We conducted our work from March through May 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office and Management and Budget. In addition, the report will available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov and to others upon request. Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions regarding this report. Key contributors to this report were Michael Kennedy, James Reifsnyder, Richard Meeks, Laura Talbott, and R.K. Wild. The military services conduct recruit basic training at ten installations in the United States. The Army has the most locations—five, with Fort Jackson, South Carolina, training the most Army recruits. The Marine Corps conducts its training at two primary locations—Parris Island, South Carolina on the east coast and San Diego in the west. Further, about 4 weeks (consisting of weapons qualification and field training exercises) of the Marine Corps’ 12-week basic training course at San Diego is conducted at Camp Pendleton because of training space limitations at its San Diego location. The Navy and Air Force conduct their basic training at one location each—Great Lakes, Illinois, and Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, respectively. Under DOD’s installation readiness reporting system, military installation facilities are grouped into nine separate facility classes. Recruit barracks are part of the “community and housing” facility class. Figure 9 depicts the fiscal year 2001 C-ratings for each of the nine facility classes, as well as for the recruit barracks component of the “community and housing” facility class, at each basic training location. 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.

The Department of Defense reports that is has been faced with difficulties adequately maintaining its facilities to meet mission requirements. Facilities have been aging and deteriorating as funds needed to sustain and recapitalize the facilities have fallen short of requirements. GAO's review of the services' condition assessments in conjunction with visits to the basic training locations showed that most barracks were in need of significant repair, although some barracks were in better condition than others. GAO found that the exteriors of each service's barracks were generally in good condition and presented an acceptable appearance, but the barracks' infrastructure often had persistent repair problems because of inadequate maintenance. The services' approaches to recapitalize their recruit barracks vary and are influenced by their overall priorities to improve all facilities. Although the Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps are addressing many of their recapitalization needs in the near-term, most of the Army's plans are longer term.

While Congress may consider legislation to amend the U.S. patent system to address perceived deficiencies, the U.S. Supreme Court also plays a significant role in clarifying vague or ambiguous language in the Patent Act that is often at the heart of disputes between parties involved in patent infringement suits. In the latter half of this decade, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in nine patent cases, perhaps in recognition of the increasing importance of intellectual property to technological innovation, as well as in order to correct errors in lower courts' interpretation and application of patent law. What follows is a general overview of the facts and outcomes of these recent cases, presented in chronological order starting from the October Term 2004. It is normally an infringement of a patent holder's rights for anyone, without prior authorization, to use, make, offer to sell, or sell any patented invention within the United States. However, there are exceptions to this general rule; for example, a statutory exception codified at 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) provides: "It shall not be an act of [patent] infringement to ... use ... or import into the United States a patented invention ... solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information" under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. This is a "safe harbor" provision that immunizes parties from liability for their otherwise infringing acts. The factual history of Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I is as follows. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. ("Integra") is an American pharmaceutical company that owns patents related to compounds known as RGD peptides. Merck KGaA ("Merck") is a German pharmaceutical corporation that was interested in developing a drug to control angiogenesis, a process that plays a critical role in the spread of many diseases, including cancerous tumor growth, diabetic retinopathy, and rheumatoid arthritis. Merck conducted experiments using the RGD peptides to determine their efficacy in inhibiting angiogenesis. Integra sued Merck, seeking monetary damages for Merck's alleged infringement of its patented compounds. In defense, Merck asserted, in part, that its actions involving the RGD peptides came within the statutory safe harbor discussed above. At trial, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California instructed the jury that, for Merck to prevail on the "safe harbor" defense, it must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it was objectively reasonable for the company to believe that "there was a decent prospect" that the experiments "would contribute, relatively directly," to the generation of information likely to be relevant to the drug approval regulatory process. The jury found Merck liable for infringing Integra's patents because Merck had failed to show that § 271(e)(1) protected its research activities. In June 2003, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") affirmed the district court's determination as to Merck's liability. The panel majority narrowly construed the safe harbor provision as exempting from infringement liability only clinical research activities that contribute "relatively directly" to information submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for consideration in the drug approval process. Merck appealed the Federal Circuit's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The question presented to the Supreme Court was "whether uses of patented inventions in preclinical research, the results of which are not ultimately included in a submission to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are exempted from infringement by 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1)." In vacating the Federal Circuit's interpretation of the safe harbor provision, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the exemption applies to all uses of patented inventions that are "reasonably related" to the process of developing any information for FDA submission, including preclinical use of patented inventions in the drug research and development process. The Court explained that, under certain conditions, the safe harbor provision is even "sufficiently broad" to protect the use of patented compounds in experiments that are not ultimately submitted to the FDA or drug experiments that are not ultimately the subject of an FDA submission. One of the statutory bars to patentability of an invention is "novelty." For an invention to be considered "novel," it must not be wholly "anticipated" by the so-called "prior art," or public domain materials such as publications and other patents. In early 2000, the food company ConAgra informed companies that sold equipment and/or processes for browning precooked meats that such browning processes may infringe its patent on "A Method for Browning Precooked Whole Muscle Meat Products," and offered those companies the opportunity to license its patent. A competitor, Unitherm, sued ConAgra for a declaratory judgment that the patent was invalid and unenforceable, and that ConAgra had violated federal antitrust laws by attempting to enforce a patent that was obtained by committing fraud on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma ruled that ConAgra's patent was invalid because of evidence that Unitherm's president had invented the process described in that patent six years before ConAgra had filed its patent application. The court then allowed the antitrust claim to proceed to trial. Before the case was submitted to the jury, ConAgra filed a motion with the court for a judgment as a matter of law, on the grounds that no reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to support a verdict in favor of Unitherm on the antitrust issue. The District Court denied the motion, and the jury returned a verdict for Unitherm. ConAgra, however, failed to renew its request for judgment as a matter of law by filing another motion after the verdict, a procedural requirement under Federal Rules of Procedure 50(b), nor did it request a new trial under Federal Rules of Procedure 59. ConAgra appealed to the Federal Circuit, asserting that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury's verdict. The Federal Circuit determined that ConAgra's failure to file a postverdict motion did not preclude the company on appeal from raising the challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on the antitrust claim. The appellate court then proceeded to review the evidence and after concluding it was insufficient, vacated the jury's judgment in favor of Unitherm and remanded the case for a new trial. In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Circuit was precluded from reviewing the case, and reversed its judgment. The Court explained that a party's failure to file a postverdict motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence under Rule 50(b) renders an "appellate court without power to direct the District Court to enter judgment contrary to the one it had permitted to stand." Strict compliance with this postverdict motion rule is necessary, according to the Court, because "[d]etermination of whether a new trial should be granted or a judgment entered under Rule 50(b) calls for the judgment in the first instance of the judge who saw and heard the witnesses and has the feel of the case which no appellate printed transcript can impart." Because ConAgra did not file such a motion in the district court, it is not entitled to pursue a new trial on appeal, the Court ruled. This case involved the practice of Trident (a subsidiary of Illinois Tool Works) of selling its patented printing systems (consisting of patented ink jet printheads and patented ink containers) to manufacturers of printers only on the condition that those manufacturers (and their customers) agree to purchase their ink exclusively from Trident, although such ink itself is unpatented. Independent Ink, a competitor manufacturer of ink that could be used in those printheads, sued Trident, alleging that Trident's practice was an illegal tying arrangement and monopolization in violation of federal antitrust laws. Traditionally, for tying to constitute an antitrust violation, the plaintiff must affirmatively establish that the defendant has market power (i.e., control over the market in which his product competes). Independent Ink asserted that Trident "necessarily ha[d] market power in the market for the tying product [printheads] as a matter of law" solely by virtue of its patent on the printhead system. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California rejected that claim and found that there had been no affirmative evidence of the relevant market nor of Trident's position in it. Thus, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Trident. In January 2005, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's decision, holding that "a rebuttable presumption of market power arises from the possession of a patent over a tying product." In so ruling, the appellate court emphasized that it had a "duty ... to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court until the Court itself chooses to expressly overrule them." The Supreme Court has held for more than 60 years that where a patented product was the "tying" product, there was a presumption that the existence of a patent monopoly creates sufficient market power to support an antitrust violation. Congress, however, rejected this presumption for purposes of establishing the patent misuse defense when it amended the Patent Act in 1988. Yet neither Congress nor the Supreme Court had decided whether the presumption remained in antitrust jurisprudence when the tying product is patented. In March 2006, the Supreme Court vacated the Federal Circuit's judgment without dissent, holding that "the mere fact that a tying product is patented does not support such a presumption." The Court explained that its reevaluation of its precedents establishing the per se rule was prudent in light of Congress's narrowing of the patent misuse defense, as well as the "vast majority of academic literature" that had extensively criticized the "patent equals market power" presumption. Thus, the Court in this case eliminated the presumption in antitrust law and stated that "in all cases involving a tying arrangement, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has market power in the tying product." A patent holder has the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States, or importing the protected invention into the United States. Whoever performs any one of these five acts during the term of the invention's patent, without the patent holder's authorization, is liable for infringement. To prevent the violation of any right secured by a patent, the Patent Act provides that a federal court "may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity." eBay operates a website that allows sellers to list products for sale and buyers to purchase those goods either through an auction system or at a fixed price. MercExchange alleged that eBay's "Buy It Now" functionality on its website, which permits users to buy items at fixed prices rather than bid for them, comes within the claims of its patent, and filed a patent infringement lawsuit against eBay in September 2001. Although the jury returned a verdict finding that eBay had willfully infringed MercExchange's patent, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia refused to issue an injunction against the Internet auctioneer, after determining that (1) monetary damages would be an adequate remedy at law, (2) MercExchange would not be irreparably harmed in the absence of an injunction, (3) the balance of hardships fell slightly in eBay's favor, and (4) the public interest would not necessarily be furthered in this case, because MercExchange "does not practice its patents" and "exists merely to license its patented technology to others." On appeal, the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed the jury's verdict on the finding of infringement. However, the appellate court ruled that MercExchange was entitled to an injunction to prevent further infringement by eBay, finding inadequate the district court's reasons for refusing to issue an injunction. According to the Federal Circuit, "Because the right to exclude recognized in a patent is but the essence of the concept of property, the general rule is that a permanent injunction will issue once infringement and validity have been adjudged." In May 2006, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the Federal Circuit's judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion in this case. Although the Court noted that "we take no position on whether permanent injunctive relief should or should not issue in this particular case," the Court clarified that the traditional principles of equity that govern issuance of injunctive relief "apply with equal force to disputes arising under the Patent Act," thus dispelling any notion that patent disputes are subject to different standards than those applicable to cases arising under other areas of law. The Court explained that neither of the lower courts had "fairly" applied the traditional equitable principles in determining whether injunctive relief should issue in this case. The district court had erred by improperly suggesting that injunctive relief was categorically unavailable in cases where patent holders only license their patents rather than commercialize the invention themselves. On the other hand, the Federal Circuit was incorrect in pronouncing a rule, unique to patent cases, that strongly favored injunctions when infringement has been adjudged. Two concurring opinions, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Justice Anthony Kennedy, were filed in eBay v. MercExchange and reveal an apparent disagreement among the justices. Chief Justice Roberts' concurring opinion, joined by Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, predicted that injunctive relief will likely continue to be the usual remedy for patent infringement, consistent with the "long tradition of equity practice." A district court's equitable discretion in granting or denying an injunction in patent cases, therefore, is not unfettered, in the view of these three Justices. While agreeing with Chief Justice Robert's concurrence that "history may be instructive" in applying the four-factor test when the circumstances of a patent case are similar to those of earlier cases, Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, and Stephen Breyer, suggested that historical practice might not necessarily be helpful for courts to follow when dealing with some patent infringement suits in the current business environment: "[T]rial courts should bear in mind that in many instances the nature of the patent being enforced and the economic function of the patent holder present considerations quite unlike earlier cases." Justice Kennedy acknowledged the emergence of patent holding companies and their impact on patent litigation today: An industry has developed in which firms use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining licensing fees.... For these firms, an injunction, and the potentially serious sanctions arising from its violation, can be employed as a bargaining tool to charge exorbitant fees to companies that seek to buy licenses to practice the patent.... When the patented invention is but a small component of the product the companies seek to produce and the threat of an injunction is employed simply for undue leverage in negotiations, legal damages may well be sufficient to compensate for the infringement and an injunction may not serve the public interest. According to the Patent Act, one who "invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or any composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title." Thus, an invention may be patented if it falls within one of these statutory classes of subject matter: processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. The Supreme Court has articulated limits for patentability, previously stating that "laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" may not be patented. The Court has elaborated on this restriction in several cases: [A] new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter. Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc 2 ; nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity. Such discoveries are "manifestations of ... nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none." The patent at issue in Laboratory Corporation v. Metabolite Labs involves a way of detecting a deficiency in two B vitamins, cobalamin and folate, in the human body. Low levels of these vitamins can cause serious illnesses in humans. Metabolite Laboratories holds a license to a patent that claims a medical diagnostic method for detecting cobalamin or folate deficiency. This patented method requires two separate steps: first, measuring a body fluid for elevated levels of a particular amino acid (homocysteine), and second, noticing that an elevated level of this amino acid correlates with a deficiency in the two vitamins. Metabolite filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Laboratory Corporation (LabCorp), a clinical reference laboratory that performs tests to help health care providers in diagnosing and treating their patients. The lawsuit asserted that LabCorp committed infringement on the patented method when it induced doctors to infringe by performing homocysteine tests and making the correlation. In November 2001, a jury found that the patent was valid and deemed LabCorp guilty for willful patent infringement. The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado entered an injunction against LabCorp from performing any homocysteine tests. In June 2004, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court explained that infringement of the patent at issue occurs when a physician determines there is a cobalamin or folate deficiency by "correlating" a particular test result (of elevated levels of homocysteine) with B vitamin deficiencies. This is the "direct" infringement of the patent, for which LabCorp was held liable for inducing. The Federal Circuit cited evidence in the record that LabCorp was liable for such infringement because its educational publications and informational materials distributed to medical doctors stated that elevated total homocysteine correlates to vitamin deficiencies. The question presented on which the Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case was: "Whether a method patent setting forth an indefinite, undescribed, and non-enabling step directing a party simply to 'correlat[e]' test results can validly claim a monopoly over a basic scientific relationship used in medical treatment such that any doctor necessarily infringes the patent merely by thinking about the relationship after looking at a test result." In its petitions submitted to the Supreme Court on this question, LabCorp urged reversal of the Federal Circuit's judgment. LabCorp argued that upholding the patent claim in this case would amount to allowing a patent on a scientific principle or scientific fact, in violation of patent jurisprudence that prohibits patenting laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. In reply, Metabolite's briefs argued that the Supreme Court should dismiss the case on procedural grounds. Metabolite noted that the issue of whether the diagnostic method met subject matter patentability requirements should not be considered by the Court, because the matter was never properly raised or addressed in LabCorp's arguments before the district court or Federal Circuit. Therefore, Metabolite reasoned, the Court should dismiss the writ of certiorari or affirm the Federal Circuit's decision. In a per curiam decision issued on June 22, 2006, the Court dismissed the case, stating only that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted. The effect of the dismissal is that the Federal Circuit's judgment affirming infringement liability and the patent's validity is left undisturbed. Three justices dissented to the dismissal of the writ. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for himself and Justices John Paul Stevens and David Souter, argued that the question is not unusually difficult to decide, the parties have fully briefed the question, and that the Court has the authority to decide it. Furthermore, he opined that "those who engage in medical research, who practice medicine, and who as patients depend upon proper health care, might well benefit from this Court's authoritative answer." Justice Breyer explained that he would have held the patent invalid because "[t]here can be little doubt that the correlation between homocysteine and vitamin deficiency ... is a 'natural phenomenon'" that is not patentable. In addition, Justice Breyer offered insight into his views regarding the legal correctness of the Federal Circuit's State Street Bank decision in 1998, which had held that a process is patentable if it produces a "useful, concrete, and tangible result." (This controversial Federal Circuit decision has paved the way for inventors to obtain patents on "methods" or techniques of doing business; for example, the patent in the eBay case discussed above is a so-called "business method" patent.) Justice Breyer criticized the State Street Bank ruling, asserting that "[T]his Court has never made such a statement and, if taken literally, the statement would cover instances where this Court has held the contrary." Under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited to actual, ongoing cases and controversies. The Declaratory Judgment Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2201, authorizes a federal court to issue a judgment declaring the legal rights of any interested party seeking such declaration, "whether or not further relief is or could be sought," in a "case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction." The Supreme Court has held that an action for declaratory relief qualifies as a "case or controversy" under Article III; furthermore, it has explained: "[T]he question in each case is whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment." The question that the Supreme Court faced in MedImmune v. Genentech is whether a patent licensee must terminate or breach its license agreement before it can bring suit to obtain a declaratory judgment that the underlying patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. MedImmune, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company that manufactures a drug, Synagis, used to prevent respiratory tract disease in infants and young children. A year before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Synagis for marketing to consumers, MedImmune had entered into a patent license agreement with the biotechnology company Genentech in 1997, concerning an existing Genentech patent relating to the production of "chimeric antibodies" (the Cabilly I patent) and also a then-pending patent application for "the coexpression of immunoglobulin chains in recombinant host cells." MedImmune agreed to pay royalties on sales of any "licensed products" that it may make or sell which would infringe the claims of either of the patents, if not for the license agreement. In December 2001, Genentech was awarded a patent on the "coexpression" application that was the subject of the licensing agreement ("Cabilly II patent"). Genentech sent MedImmune a letter, asserting that the Synagis drug came within the scope of the new Cabilly II patent, and that therefore it was a "licensed product" for which royalties are owed under the 1997 license agreement. MedImmune, however, believed the Cabilly II patent invalid and unenforceable or, alternatively, that Synagis did not infringe the patent's claims. Despite this assessment, MedImmune paid the royalties "under protest," because it considered Genentech's letter a threat to sue for patent infringement if it failed to comply with the demands therein. MedImmune initiated a declaratory judgment action against Genentech, seeking a declaration that the patent was invalid. Genentech filed a defense motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), asserting that the federal courts lacked Article III jurisdiction over the claim because no "actual controversy" existed between the parties. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted the motion, dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court explained that it was obliged to dismiss the case due to the controlling precedent of the Federal Circuit's Gen-Probe Inc. v. Vysis, Inc. decision in 2004, which had held that "a patent licensee in good standing cannot establish an Article III case or controversy with regard to validity, enforceability, or scope of the patent because the license agreement 'obliterates any reasonable apprehension' that the licensee will be sued for infringement." Because MedImmune continued to pay royalties under the license agreement, it was a licensee in good standing and was not under threat or in reasonable apprehension of suit, the court reasoned. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, relying on its earlier Gen-Probe decision in determining that there was a lack of a justiciable controversy. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's judgment and remanded the case to the district court. The Court held that a patent licensee is not required to repudiate its license agreement before seeking a declaratory judgment in federal court that the underlying patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed. However, the Court "express[ed] no opinion" on whether such a nonrepudiating licensee is relieved of its contract obligations during the suit challenging the patent's validity. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia first explained that the Article III "case or controversy" requirement would have been satisfied if MedImmune had refused to make royalty payments. At issue here, however, was whether a case or controversy still existed when MedImmune's compliance with the license terms eliminated the immediate threat of injury from a patent infringement lawsuit. Justice Scalia offered a comparison to a situation where the government threatens legal action, in which there is no requirement that "a plaintiff [] expose himself to liability before bringing suit to challenge the basis for the threat—for example, the constitutionality of a law threatened to be enforced." In such a case, courts have not found Article III jurisdiction to be lacking despite the fact that the plaintiff's own action (or inaction) in failing to violate the law eliminates the imminent threat of prosecution. Although a private party rather than the government threatened the enforcement action in MedImmune , this distinction does not make a significant legal difference that would eliminate jurisdiction, Justice Scalia argued. Thus, the Federal Circuit erred when it upheld the district court's dismissal of the case for lack of jurisdiction. In lone dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas maintained that a patent licensee in good standing must breach its license prior to challenging the validity of the underlying patent. He stated: "[T]he declaratory judgment procedure cannot be used to obtain advanced rulings on matters that would be addressed in a future case of actual controversy." In his view, MedImmune's suit was an attempt to seek a ruling on hypothetical or conjectural matters, and thus federal courts lacked Article III jurisdiction over its claims. Section 103(a) of the Patent Act provides one of the statutory bars for patentability of inventions, such that a patent claim is invalid if "the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that 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." In other words, for the subject matter of an alleged invention or discovery to be patentable, it must be "nonobvious" at the time of its creation. The nonobviousness requirement is met if the subject matter claimed in a patent application is beyond the ordinary abilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art in the appropriate field. In the landmark 1966 case Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, the Supreme Court established an analytic framework for courts to determine "nonobviousness." The so-called Graham test describes several factors that must be assessed: While the ultimate question of patent validity is one of law ... the § 103 condition, which is but one of three conditions, each of which must be satisfied, lends itself to several basic factual inquiries. Under § 103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved. Against this background, the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject matter is determined. Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. As indicia of obviousness or nonobviousness, these inquiries may have relevancy. While a single prior art reference could form the basis of a finding of nonobviousness, multiple prior art references are often involved in the analysis. In such a situation, the Federal Circuit had developed an approach in which an invention would be considered obvious only if there was an explicit or implicit "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" that would lead a person of ordinary skill to combine multiple prior art references to produce an invention. Such a "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" ("TSM") could have come from either (1) the references themselves, (2) knowledge of those skilled in the art, or (3) the nature of a problem to be solved, leading inventors to look to references relating to possible solutions to that problem. Because § 103 of the Patent Act requires that an invention's obviousness be determined from the standpoint of a person having ordinary skill in the art "at the time the invention was made," the TSM test was designed, in part, to defend against "the subtle but powerful attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness analysis." The patents at issue in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. pertain to an adjustable pedal system (APS) for use with automobiles having electronic throttle-controlled engines. Teleflex Inc. holds an exclusive license for the patent on this device that allows a driver to adjust the location of a car's gas and break pedal so that it may reach the driver's foot. KSR International Co. also manufactures an adjustable pedal assembly, and in mid-2000, designed its APS to incorporate an electronic pedal position sensor in order for it to work with electronically controlled engines, which are being increasingly used in automobiles. In 2002, Teleflex filed a patent infringement lawsuit against KSR, asserting that this new design came within the scope of its patent claims. In defense, KSR argued that Teleflex's patents were invalid because they were obvious under § 103(a) of the Patent Act—that someone with ordinary skill in the art of designing pedal systems would have found it obvious to combine an adjustable pedal system with an electronic pedal position sensor for it to work with electronically controlled engines. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan agreed with KSR that the patent was invalid for obviousness, granting summary judgment in favor of KSR. The court determined that there was "little difference between the teachings of the prior art and claims of the patent-in-suit." Furthermore, the court opined that "it was inevitable" that APS would be combined with an electronic device to work with electronically controlled engines. Upon Teleflex's appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court's ruling. The appellate court found that the district court had improperly applied the TSM test by not adhering to it more strictly—the district court had reached its obviousness ruling "without making findings as to the specific understanding or principle within the knowledge of a skilled artisan that would have motivated one with no knowledge of [the] invention to make the combination in the manner claimed." In the Federal Circuit's view, unless the "prior art references address the precise problem that the patentee was trying to solve," the problem would not motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the prior art teachings—here, the placement of an electronic sensor on an adjustable pedal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 26, 2006, to review the KSR case, in which the central question before the Court was whether the Federal Circuit had erred in crafting TSM as the sole test for obviousness under § 103(a) of the Patent Act. On April 30, 2007, the Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit's judgment, holding that the TSM test for obviousness was incompatible with § 103 and Supreme Court precedents. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, delivering the opinion of the Court, explained that the proper framework for a court or patent examiner to employ when determining an invention's obviousness is that set forth in the Court's 1966 opinion, Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City. That analytic framework provides "an expansive and flexible approach" to the question of obviousness that the "rigid" and "mandatory" TSM formula does not offer. Justice Kennedy observed that the Graham approach, as further developed in three subsequent Supreme Court cases decided within 10 years of that case, is based on several instructive principles for determining the validity of a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, it is likely obvious under § 103 and unpatentable. If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Justice Kennedy then provided additional guidance for courts in following these principles. To determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the manner claimed by the patent at issue, courts should explicitly engage in an analysis that considers the following elements: the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. The Federal Circuit's TSM test, and its mandatory application, is contrary to Graham and its progeny because it limits the obviousness analysis and is too formalistic, Justice Kennedy argued. In addition, he believed that the TSM test hindered the ability of courts and patent examiners to rely upon "common sense." However, Justice Kennedy allowed that TSM provides "a helpful insight"—that a patent comprised of several elements is not obvious just because each of those elements was, independently, known in the prior art. This "essence" of the TSM test is not necessarily inconsistent with the Graham analysis, and thus he predicted that the Federal Circuit has likely applied the TSM test on many occasions in ways that accord with the Graham principles. It is the Federal Circuit's rigid application of its TSM rule, however, that the Court deemed was problematic in this case. Justice Kennedy identified four specific legal errors committed by the Federal Circuit. First, the appellate court had held that courts and patent examiners should look only to the problem the patentee was trying to solve, rather than other problems addressed by the patent's subject matter. Second, the appellate court had assumed that a person of ordinary skill trying to solve a particular problem will be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the same problem; however, "common sense teaches ... that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." The third error of the lower court was its erroneous conclusion that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious by showing that the combination of elements was "obvious to try"; instead, Justice Kennedy noted, "the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." The final error was the Federal Circuit's adherence to "rigid preventative rules" to avoid the risk of hindsight bias on the part of courts and patent examiners, because such rules "deny factfinders recourse to common sense." As to the specific patent claim at issue in this case, the Court adopted the obviousness analysis of the district court and expressly held that the claim "must be found obvious" in light of the prior art. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. that it was not an act of patent infringement to manufacture the components of a patented invention in the United States and then ship them abroad for assembly into an end product. In response to this loophole in the patent law that would have allowed potential infringers to avoid liability, Congress added subsection (f) to § 271 of the Patent Act. This statutory provision now states: (1) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of the components of a patented invention, where such components are uncombined in whole or in part, in such manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer. (2) Whoever without authority supplies or causes to be supplied in or from the United States any component of a patented invention that is especially made or especially adapted for use in the invention and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use, where such component is uncombined in whole or in part, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe the patent if such combination occurred within the United States, shall be liable as an infringer. The patent at issue in Microsoft v. AT&T concerned AT&T's patent on a speech coder-decoder (a codec). A speech codec is a software program that is capable of converting spoken words into a compact code, or vice versa. AT&T brought suit against Microsoft in 2001, alleging that the speech codec included in Microsoft's Windows operating system infringes its patent. Microsoft filed a motion to exclude evidence of alleged liability arising from foreign sales of Windows, pursuant to § 271(f) of the Patent Act. Microsoft exports overseas a limited number of U.S.-made "golden master disks" containing the software code of its Windows operating system; foreign computer manufacturers may use these disks to replicate the master disk in generating multiple copies of Windows for installation on foreign-assembled computers that are then sold to foreign customers. In considering Microsoft's motion, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York first cited previous Federal Circuit decisions supporting the proposition that software is patentable. Then the court explained that § 271(f) does not limit "components" to only physical machines or tangible structures, but rather could include intangible information or data. Thus, the district court rejected Microsoft's argument that software could not be a "component" of a patented invention under § 271(f). As for the copies made abroad from the golden master disk sent from the United States, the district court held that such copies still came within the scope of § 271(f) in light of the legislative intent of the statute to prohibit the circumvention of infringement through exportation. Upon Microsoft's appeal, a divided panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. The appellate court relied on prior Federal Circuit case law that had held that "without question, software code alone qualifies as an invention eligible for patenting, and ... statutory language [does] not limit section 271(f) to patented 'machines' or patented 'physical structures,' such that software [can] very well be a 'component' of a patented invention for the purposes of § 271(f)." The Federal Circuit also ruled that, because "the act of copying is subsumed in the act of 'supplying,'" the exportation of the golden master disks, with the specific intent that they be replicated abroad, is an act that comes within the meaning of § 271(f)'s "supplied or caused to be supplied in or from the United States." In dissent, Federal Circuit Judge Randall R. Rader objected to the majority opinion's view that "supplies" within the meaning of § 271(f) includes the act of foreign "copying." Judge Rader expressed concerns that such an interpretation is, in effect, an impermissible "extraterritorial expansion" of U.S. patent law because it reaches "copying" activity overseas. In his view, AT&T's remedy lies not in U.S. law, but rather the law of the foreign country in which the infringement due to copying occurred. The Supreme Court accepted Microsoft's petition for a writ of certiorari in October 2006, in order to answer two questions: 1. Whether digital software code—an intangible sequence of "1's" and "0's"—may be considered a "component[] of a patented invention" within the meaning of Section 271(f)(1); and, if so, 2. Whether copies of such a "component[]" made in a foreign country are "supplie[d] ... from the United States." In a 7-1 decision issued in late April 2007, the Court reversed the Federal Circuit's judgment, holding that Microsoft was not liable for patent infringement under § 271(f), as the statute is currently written, when foreign-manufactured computers are loaded with Windows software that has been copied abroad from a master disk or an electronic transmission sent by Microsoft from the United States. In regard to the first question posed in the case, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, explained that there are two ways to conceptualize software: One can speak of software in the abstract: the instructions themselves detached from any medium. (An analogy: The notes of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.) One can alternatively envision a tangible "copy" of software, the instructions encoded on a medium such as a CD-ROM. (Sheet music for Beethoven's Ninth.) Abstract software code does not qualify as a component, for purposes of triggering liability under § 271(f), because it is an "idea" lacking physical embodiment and thus it cannot be a "usable, combinable part of a computer." Justice Ginsburg analogized software in the abstract to a detailed set of instructions, similar to that of a blueprint. But information sent abroad that instructs someone on how to build the components of a patented invention does not come within the scope of § 271(f); she observed that Congress, in enacting the statutory provision, did not include the export of design tools such as blueprints, schematics, templates, and prototypes. Thus, for the Windows software to be considered a "component" under § 271(f), the software code must be encoded or otherwise expressed in some sort of tangible medium—a computer-readable software "copy" such as a CD-ROM. The Court thus declined to adopt AT&T's characterization of software in the abstract as a combinable component that qualifies for § 271(f) liability. In reaching its answer to the second question, the Court largely agreed with Judge Rader's dissent from the Federal Circuit's opinion. The copies of Windows used for installation on the foreign computers had been made abroad; those copies were not "supplied" from the United States, even though the master disk from which they were duplicated had been exported, Justice Ginsburg noted. According to her, this distinction is legally relevant for liability purposes under § 271(f); further, such liability is not affected by the ease of copying software. Furthermore, Justice Ginsburg argued that the traditional presumption against extraterritorial application of U.S. law, particularly in patent law, would help favor the Court construing § 271(f) in a manner that excludes intangible software code and copies of software made abroad. Echoing Judge Rader's advice, Justice Ginsburg observed that "[i]f AT & T desires to prevent copying abroad, its remedy lies in obtaining and enforcing foreign patents." At the end of the opinion, Justice Ginsburg conceded that the Court's decision effectively creates a "loophole" for software makers to avoid liability under § 271(f). However, she explained that the Court would resist using the "dynamic judicial interpretation" that would be needed to adjust the patent law "to account for the realities of software distribution." The majority opinion expressly invited Congress to consider whether this apparent loophole in favor of software companies, to the extent that it may exist, merits closing. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Breyer, filed a concurring opinion in which he asserted that a "component" of an infringing physical device under § 271(f) "must be something physical"; thus, "[b]ecause no physical object originating in the United States was combined with these computers, there was no violation of § 271(f)." He further observed that "[n]o physical aspect of a Windows CD-ROM—original disk or copy—is ever incorporated into the computer itself" because the CD-ROM is removed from the computer after the installation process copies the Windows code to the computer's hard drive. In lone dissent, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens explained that he would affirm the Federal Circuit's majority opinion in the case, because he deemed that judgment to be "more faithful to the intent of the Congress that enacted § 271(f)." In his view, abstract software code, as well as the master disks that Microsoft had exported for copying abroad, should be considered "components" within the meaning of § 271(f). Justice Stevens also objected to the Court's comparison of abstract software to blueprints: "[U]nlike a blueprint that merely instructs a user how to do something, software actually causes infringing conduct to occur. It is more like a roller that causes a player piano to produce sound than sheet music that tells a pianist what to do." The Patent Act grants patent holders the exclusive right, during the term of the patent, to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling their patented invention throughout the United States, or importing the invention into the United States. The patent holder enjoys this limited monopoly as long as he retains ownership of the patented article. However, the judicially created "patent exhaustion" doctrine, also referred to as the "first sale" doctrine, provides that "the initial authorized sale of a patented item terminates all patent rights to that item." In other words, the rights of a patent owner end with the unconditional sale of an article embodying the invention, and the purchaser (or any "downstream purchasers") may use or resell the product without worrying about patent infringement liability. The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized the patent exhaustion doctrine in 1853. Then in a 1942 case, United States v. Univis Lens Co. , the Supreme Court extended the patent exhaustion doctrine to unfinished products as well: [W]here one has sold an uncompleted article which, because it embodies essential features of his patented invention, is within the protection of his patent, and has destined the article to be finished by the purchaser in conformity to the patent, he has sold his invention so far as it is or may be embodied in that particular article. The reward he has demanded and received is for the article and the invention which it embodies and which his vendee is to practice upon it. He has thus parted with his right to assert the patent monopoly with respect to it and is no longer free to control the price at which it may be sold either in its unfinished or finished form. In Univis , the holder of patents relating to multifocal lenses licensed a purchaser to manufacture lens blanks (pieces of glass for use, when ground and polished, as bi- and tri-focal lenses in eyeglasses); these blanks were then sold to wholesalers who ground the blanks into the patented finished lenses, which in turn were sold to prescription retailers for resale to consumers at prices fixed by the patent holder. The lens blanks were also sold to finishing retailers who ground and polished the lenses into finished multifocal lenses and then sold to consumers at prices stipulated by the patent licensor. The United States brought an antitrust suit against the patent holder under the Sherman Act regarding these restrictions on the sale of the finished lenses; in defense, the patent holder argued that its patent monopoly rights shield the price fixing licensing system from the operation of the Sherman Act. The Supreme Court ruled against the patent holder, stating the following: [M]erely because the licensee takes the final step in the manufacture of the patented product, by doing work on the blank which he has purchased from the patentee's licensee, it does not follow that the patentee can control the price at which the finished lens is sold. [E]ach blank ... embodies essential features of the patented device and is without utility until it is ground and polished as the finished lens of the patent. The three patents at issue in Quanta Computer , Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. concern the design and operation of certain personal computer technology—specifically, data processing functions carried out by microprocessors, chipsets, and computer memory. The holder of these patents, LG Electronics (LGE), licensed them to Intel Corporation (Intel), via a cross-licensing agreement (License Agreement) that allowed Intel to manufacture and sell microprocessors and chipsets that practice the patented technology. The License Agreement also specifies that no license "is granted by either party hereto ... to any third party for the combination by a third party of Licensed Products of either party with items, components, or the like acquired ... from sources other than a party hereto, or for the use, import, offer for sale or sale of such combination." In a separate agreement (Master Agreement), LGE required Intel to inform Intel's customers that although the Intel products are licensed by LGE and do not infringe LGE patents, the license "does not extend, expressly or by implication, to any product" that the Intel customer makes by combining an Intel product with any non-Intel product. Intel sold microprocessors and chipsets to Quanta Computer and provided Quanta with the written notice required under the Master Agreement. Despite the warning, Quanta manufactured computer systems that combined the Intel components with non-Intel memory and other computer parts. LGE then brought a patent infringement lawsuit against Quanta. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment of noninfringement of LGE's patents. The district court observed that the unpatented Intel components must be combined with additional computer parts in order to function and infringe LGE's patents and that, standing alone, they have "no reasonable non-infringing use." Therefore, the court held that under Univis , LGE's patent rights were exhausted by the License Agreement. However, the district court issued a subsequent order that limited its ruling, stating that the patent exhaustion doctrine applies only to apparatus claims that describe a physical object (such as a system or device), and not to process or method claims that describe how to make or use a product. Thus, the court ruled that although patent exhaustion shields Quanta from liability for infringing LGE's apparatus patents, Quanta may still be held liable for infringing LGE's method patents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's holding that method patents cannot be exhausted. However, the appellate court reversed the district court's determination as to the apparatus claims in LGE's patents, finding that the exhaustion doctrine does not apply to a conditional sale or license. Thus, LGE's patents that include apparatus claims were also not exhausted because the License Agreement "expressly disclaims granting a license allowing computer system manufacturers to combine Intel's licensed parts with other non-Intel components." On June 9, 2008, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit's holding that method patents cannot be exhausted; furthermore, the Court held that because the License Agreement "authorizes the sale of components that substantially embody the patents in suit," Intel's sale to Quanta had exhausted LGE's patents. In its brief filed with the Court, LGE had argued that "because method patents are linked not to a tangible article but to a process, they can never be exhausted through a sale." Justice Thomas, the author of the Court's opinion, rejected LGE's reasoning, explaining that It is true that a patented method may not be sold in the same way as an article or device, but methods nonetheless may be "embodied" in a product, the sale of which exhausts patent rights. Our precedents do not differentiate transactions involving embodiments of patented methods or processes from those involving patented apparatuses or materials. To the contrary, this Court has repeatedly held that method patents were exhausted by the sale of an item that embodied the method. Furthermore, Justice Thomas observed that to preclude exhaustion of method claims "would seriously undermine the exhaustion doctrine. Patentees seeking to avoid patent exhaustion could simply draft their patent claims to describe a method rather than an apparatus." Justice Thomas also declared that this case is controlled by Univis : Like the Univis lens blanks, the Intel Products constitute a material part of the patented invention and all but completely practice the patent. Here, as in Univis , the incomplete article substantially embodies the patent because the only step necessary to practice the patent is the application of common processes or the addition of standard parts. Everything inventive about each patent is embodied in the Intel Products.... The Intel Products were specifically designed to function only when memory or buses are attached; Quanta was not required to make any creative or inventive decision when it added those parts. Indeed, Quanta had no alternative but to follow Intel's specifications in incorporating the Intel Products into its computers because it did not know their internal structure, which Intel guards as a trade secret. Intel all but practiced the patent itself by designing its products to practice the patents, lacking only the addition of standard parts. LGE had argued that there was no implied license for Quanta to practice LGE's patents because the License Agreement between LGE and Intel specifically had disclaimed licenses to third parties to combine the licensed product with other components. Justice Thomas, however, dismissed this argument as "irrelevant" because "Quanta asserts its right to practice the patents based not on implied license but on exhaustion. And exhaustion turns only on Intel's own license to sell products practicing the LGE Patents." Therefore, the dispositive question was whether Intel's sale to Quanta was authorized by the patent holder under the License Agreement (such authorized sale being the trigger for patent exhaustion). Justice Thomas observed that the License Agreement provided Intel with broad authority to "make, use [or] sell" products that substantially practice or embody LGE's patents. Although the Master Agreement required Intel to give notice to its customers that LGE had not authorized those customers to practice its patents, Intel's right to sell the products "was not conditioned on the notice or on Quanta's decision to abide by LGE's directions in that notice." Furthermore, the Master Agreement contained a provision that stated that "a breach of this Agreement shall have no effect on and shall not be grounds for termination of the Patent License." Justice Thomas opined that although patent damages are no longer available to LGE due to patent exhaustion, the Court "express[es] no opinion" on whether LGE may still have other rights to seek damages under contract law, including breach-of-contract claims. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued two decisions in the 1990s, In re Alappat and State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, that had expanded the scope of patent-eligible subject matter to include any process that produces a "useful, concrete and tangible result." The patent application at issue in Bilski v. Kappos contained claims that relate to a method of hedging risk in the commodities trading field. The PTO examiner rejected the application on the basis that the claims were not directed to patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 of the Patent Act, a determination that was upheld by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences ("Board"). The Board held that the transformation of "non-physical financial risks and legal liabilities of the commodity provider, the consumer, and the market participants" is not patentable subject matter. In addition, the Board found that the claimed process did not produce a "useful, concrete and tangible result." On October 30, 2008, the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in the case, in which it affirmed the Board's decision. More importantly, the appellate court's decision clarified the standards concerning patentability of process claims. In so doing, the Federal Circuit expressly overruled In re Alappat, State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, and its other prior decisions that relied on the "useful, concrete and tangible result" test for process patent eligibility. Instead, the Federal Circuit announced a different test that was to exclusively govern the eligibility of process claims for patent protection under § 101 of the Patent Act: A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. In applying the "machine-or-transformation" test to the facts in Bilski, the Federal Circuit held that Bilski's process claim failed to satisfy the new legal standard, because the process does not transform any article to a different state or thing, nor does it meet the machine implementation part of the test as well. On June 1, 2009, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Bilski to consider two questions: Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a "process" must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing ("machine-or-transformation" test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, despite this Court's precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for "any" new and useful process beyond excluding patents for "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas." Whether the Federal Circuit's "machine-or-transformation" test for patent eligibility, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, contradicts the clear congressional intent that patents protect "method[s] of doing or conducting business." 35 U.S.C. § 273. In an opinion written by Justice Kennedy, the Court held that the Federal Circuit was erroneous in declaring that the "machine-or-transformation" test is the exclusive test for process patent eligibility under § 101. However, the Court recognized that its precedents have established that the "machine-or-transformation" test is "a useful and important clue, an investigative tool, for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101." Thus, the Court did not invalidate the "machine-or-transformation" test, but rather reversed the Federal Circuit's requirement that the test be the only standard by which processes may be judged for patent eligibility under § 101. However, the Court did not articulate a different test or adopt new categorical rules for process patent eligibility "that might have wide-ranging and unforeseen impacts," nor did it provide much guidance to the lower courts on this matter. Instead, the Court invited the Federal Circuit to develop additional tests and other limiting criteria regarding what constitutes a patentable process. The Bilski Court also ruled that some business methods may be patentable, because: (1) the Patent Act's definition of "process" does not categorically exclude business methods; and (2) § 273 of the Patent Act contemplates the possibility that some business methods, at least in some circumstances, may be eligible for patenting. Turning to the particular patent at issue in this case, the Court agreed that Bilski's patent application is not a patentable "process" under § 101. It reached this conclusion without relying upon the "machine-or-transformation" test, but rather its earlier precedents that prohibit the patenting of "laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas." Because the Court viewed Bilski's patent claims to be attempts to patent abstract ideas, the claimed processes are ineligible for patent protection under § 101. In two subparts of the Court's opinion that Justice Scalia did not join, thus representing only a plurality of the Court, Justice Kennedy expressed concern that the "machine-or-transformation" test may negatively impact the Information Age and might "create uncertainty as to the patentability of software, advanced diagnostic medicine techniques, and inventions based on linear programming, data compression, and the manipulation of digital signals." He also opined that "some business method patents raise special problems in terms of vagueness and suspect validity," but suggested that the Court's precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas could serve as a useful limiting principle in considering whether to grant or uphold patents on business methods. Justice Stevens filed a lengthy concurring opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, in which he agreed with the Court's determinations that the "machine-or-transformation" test was not the sole test for what constitutes a patentable process and that Bilski's patent claim is not a "process" within the meaning of § 101. However, he disagreed with the Court's disposition of the case. He would have rejected the patent application because Bilski's method "describes only a general method of engaging in business transactions—and business methods are not patentable." Therefore, in the view of these four justices, business methods do not qualify as a "process" eligible for patenting under § 101. Justice Stevens reached this conclusion by finding "strong historical evidence" in patent case law and legislative history, that suggested that business methods are not patentable. He also expressed concern that business methods may stifle technological progress (and legitimate business competition and innovation) rather than promote it. In a brief concurring opinion, joined in part by Justice Scalia, Justice Breyer highlighted the areas of substantial agreement among the members of the Court on several of the fundamental issues of patent law raised by the Bilski case. He identified four points that he believed are consistent with the Court's opinion and with Justice Stevens' concurring opinion: 1. While the text of § 101 is broad, it is not without limit. 2. The "machine-or-transformation" test has been repeatedly helpful to courts in identifying what is a patentable "process." 3. Although the "machine-or-transformation" test has always been a "useful and important clue" for determining patentability of processes, it has never been the "sole test." 4. The Court disagrees with State Street Bank's judgment that anything which produces a "useful, concrete, and tangible result" is patentable.

Patent law jurisprudence is continually being developed through litigation over activities that allegedly infringe a patent holder's rights. The losing party in these cases may appeal the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a specialized tribunal established by Congress that has exclusive appellate jurisdiction in patent cases. Parties dissatisfied with the Federal Circuit's rulings may petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appellate court's decision. However, the Supreme Court is not required to entertain the appeal; it has discretion to decide whether to grant certiorari to review the case. While the Supreme Court has left the Federal Circuit's opinions undisturbed in the vast majority of patent cases since the creation of the specialized patent court in 1982, the Court has shown, over the past several terms, an increased willingness to hear cases that raise patent law issues. The Supreme Court Justices' apparent newfound interest in patent cases perhaps stems from a recognition of the growing importance of intellectual property to the nation's information-based economy, as well as a desire to correct perceived errors in lower courts' interpretation and application of patent law. This report provides a brief summary of the Supreme Court's patent law jurisprudence in the following nine cases that have been decided since 2005: Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Unitherm Food Systems v. Swift-Eckrich, Illinois Tool Works v. Independent Ink, eBay v. MercExchange, Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Metabolite Labs., MedImmune v. Genentech, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., Microsoft v. AT&T, Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., and Bilski v. Kappos.

Abstract Recent research has begun to distinguish two aspects of subjective well-being. Emotional well-being refers to the emotional quality of an individual's everyday experience—the frequency and intensity of experiences of joy, stress, sadness, anger, and affection that make one's life pleasant or unpleasant. Life evaluation refers to the thoughts that people have about their life when they think about it. We raise the question of whether money buys happiness, separately for these two aspects of well-being. We report an analysis of more than 450,000 responses to the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, a daily survey of 1,000 US residents conducted by the Gallup Organization. We find that emotional well-being (measured by questions about emotional experiences yesterday) and life evaluation (measured by Cantril's Self-Anchoring Scale) have different correlates. Income and education are more closely related to life evaluation, but health, care giving, loneliness, and smoking are relatively stronger predictors of daily emotions. When plotted against log income, life evaluation rises steadily. Emotional well-being also rises with log income, but there is no further progress beyond an annual income of ~$75,000. Low income exacerbates the emotional pain associated with such misfortunes as divorce, ill health, and being alone. We conclude that high income buys life satisfaction but not happiness, and that low income is associated both with low life evaluation and low emotional well-being. The question of whether “money buys happiness” comes up frequently in discussions of subjective well-being in both scholarly debates and casual conversation. The topic has been addressed in a vast and inconclusive research literature (for a selection of recent reviews, see refs. 1–4). No single article can settle this complex question definitively, but data recently collected by the Gallup Organization in the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index (GHWBI) provide a rich source of observations, as well as an unusually detailed measurement of well-being. We analyze the responses of more than 450,000 US residents surveyed in 2008 and 2009 to several questions about their subjective well-being. The results suggest a rather complex answer to our opening question. A discussion of subjective well-being must recognize a distinction between two concepts that are often confounded (5–8). Emotional well-being (sometimes called hedonic well-being or experienced happiness) refers to the emotional quality of an individual's everyday experience—the frequency and intensity of experiences of joy, fascination, anxiety, sadness, anger, and affection that make one's life pleasant or unpleasant. Life evaluation refers to a person's thoughts about his or her life. Surveys of subjective well-being have traditionally emphasized life evaluation. The most commonly asked question in these surveys is the life satisfaction question: “How satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?” The GHWBI survey is unusual in its attempt to distinguish and capture both aspects of subjective well-being. Emotional well-being is assessed by questions about the presence of various emotions in the experience of yesterday (e.g., enjoyment, happiness, anger, sadness, stress, worry). Life evaluation is measured using Cantril's Self-Anchoring Scale, which has the respondent rate his or her current life on a ladder scale in which 0 is “the worst possible life for you” and 10 is “the best possible life for you.” We find that emotional well-being and life evaluation have different correlates in the circumstances of people's lives. In particular, we observe striking differences in the relationship of these aspects of well-being to income. (For related observations in the Gallup World Poll, see ref. 9.) Confusion abounds in discussions of our question. For an example, consider the statement that “a lasting marriage…is estimated to be worth $100,000 a year” (10). This correct statement of a research finding is likely to be misunderstood, because many readers will interpret it by imagining the pleasure of a change of this magnitude in their income. The pleasure of a raise is likely to be transient, however, due to a phenomenon known as adaptation. Because of adaptation, the difference in well-being between two random individuals whose income differs by $100,000 is far less impressive than the joy and misery that these individuals would immediately experience were they to trade places. Because the observed effects of long-established income differences are much smaller than intuitively expected, they are sometimes described as inconsequential, but this too is misleading. When entered in multiple regression model to predict well-being along with other aspects of life circumstances (marital status, age, education), the effects of household income are almost invariably both statistically significant and quantitatively important. We report that household income matters for both emotional well-being and life evaluation, and that there are circumstances under which it matters for the latter when it does not matter for the former. Some of the confusion regarding the effects of income on well-being can be traced to incorrect analysis. Psychologists and sociologists often plot measures of subjective well-being against income in dollars, but a strong argument can be made for the logarithm of income as the preferred scale. The logarithmic transformation represents a basic fact of perception known as Weber's Law, which applies generally to quantitative dimensions of perception and judgment (e.g., the intensity of sounds and lights). The rule is that the effective stimulus for the detection and evaluation of changes or differences in such dimensions is the percentage change, not its absolute amount. In the context of income, a $100 raise does not have the same significance for a financial services executive as for an individual earning the minimum wage, but a doubling of their respective incomes might have a similar impact on both. The logarithmic transformation reveals an important regularity of judgment that risks being masked when a dollar scale is used. Plots of subjective well-being against income in dollars invariably yield a strongly concave function. Although concavity is entailed by the psychophysics of quantitative dimensions, it often has been cited as evidence that people derive little or no psychological benefit from income beyond some threshold. Although this conclusion has been widely accepted in discussions of the relationship between life evaluation and gross domestic product (GDP) across nations (11–14), it is false, at least for this aspect of subjective well-being. In accordance with Weber's Law, average national life evaluation is linear when appropriately plotted against log GDP (15); a doubling of income provides similar increments of life evaluation for countries rich and poor. As this example illustrates, the statement that “money does not buy happiness” may be inferred from a careless reading of a plot of life evaluation against raw income—an error avoided by using the logarithm of income. In the present study, we confirm the contribution of higher income to improving individuals’ life evaluation, even among those who are already well off. However, we also find that the effects of income on the emotional dimension of well-being satiate fully at an annual income of ~$75,000, a result that is, of course, independent of whether dollars or log dollars are used as a measure of income. The aims of our analysis of the GHWBI were to examine possible differences between the correlates of emotional well-being and of life evaluation, focusing in particular on the relationship between these measures and household income. Results Some observations were deleted to eliminate likely errors in the reports of income. The GHWBI asks individuals to report their monthly family income in 11 categories. The three lowest categories—0, <$60, and $60–$499—cannot be treated as serious estimates of household income. We deleted these three categories (a total of 14,425 observations out of 709,183), as well as those respondents for whom income is missing (172,677 observations). We then regressed log income on indicators for the congressional district in which the respondent lived, educational categories, sex, age, age squared, race categories, marital status categories, and height. Thus, we predict the log of each individual's income by the mean of log incomes in his or her congressional district, modified by personal characteristics. This regression explains 37% of the variance, with a root mean square error (RMSE) of 0.67852. To eliminate outliers and implausible income reports, we dropped observations in which the absolute value of the difference between log income and its prediction exceeded 2.5 times the RMSE. This trimming lost 14,510 observations out of 450,417, or 3.22%. In all, we lost 28.4% of the original sample. In comparison, the US Census Bureau imputed income for 27.5% of households in the 2008 wave of the American Community Survey (ACS). As a check that our exclusions do not systematically bias income estimates compared with Census Bureau procedures, we compared the mean of the logarithm of income in each congressional district from the GHWBI with the logarithm of median income from the ACS. If income is approximately lognormal, then these should be close. The correlation was 0.961, with the GHWBI estimates about 6% lower, possibly attributable to the fact that the GHWBI data cover both 2008 and 2009. We defined positive affect by the average of three dichotomous items (reports of happiness, enjoyment, and frequent smiling and laughter) and what we refer to as “blue affect”—the average of worry and sadness. Reports of stress (also dichotomous) were analyzed separately (as was anger, for which the results were similar but not shown) and life evaluation was measured using the Cantril ladder. The correlations between the emotional well-being measures and the ladder values had the expected sign but were modest in size (all <0.31). Positive affect, blue affect, and stress also were weakly correlated (positive and blue affect correlated –0.38, and –0.28, and 0.52 with stress.) The results shown here are similar when the constituents of positive and blue affect are analyzed separately. As in other studies of well-being, we found that most people were quite happy and satisfied with their lives. About 85% of respondents experienced much positive affect (the average of smiling, enjoyment, and happiness) each day. Blue affect (sadness and worry) was reported by 24%, and stress was reported by 39%. The average of the Cantril ladder score was 6.76. Compared with about 150 other countries for which we have corresponding data from the Gallup World Poll, these results indicate that the US population ranks high on the ladder (ninth after the Scandinavian countries, Canada, The Netherlands, Switzerland, and New Zealand), and also does well in terms of happiness (fifth), smiling (33rd), and enjoyment (10th), but much less well on worry (89th from best), sadness (69th from best), and anger (75th). Americans report very high levels of stress (fifth among 151 countries). Table 1 presents regressions of the four well-being measures on a set of demographic variables, which provide context for interpreting these measures. All of the predictors are dichotomous. The first row of the table shows the regression coefficient for an indicator of high income, defined as reporting a monthly income of at least $4,000, which corresponds to the top 58% of the population. These coefficients cannot be compared across the row, because the outcomes have different scales. The entries in other rows are ratios normalized by the coefficient on the high-income indicator, thus representing the estimated effect relative to the effect of increasing income by approximately 4-fold. The sign of each ratio is positive if its regression coefficient has the same sign as the coefficient for income (positive for positive affect, negative for blue affect, etc.). A coefficient >1 indicates an effect larger than that of the income dichotomy. Because higher incomes are always associated with better outcomes, positive ratios indicate that the predictor is associated with better outcomes, and negative ratios indicate the opposite. Table 1. Life evaluation, emotional well-being, income, and the income-normalized effects of other correlates With few exceptions, the various predictors have the same sign for all four well-being measures, but their relative sizes vary considerably. As might be expected, weekends are associated with improved affect, especially with reduced stress. Physical illness, headaches, spending a day alone, and caring for an adult all have relatively larger adverse effects on emotional well-being than on life evaluation. Headaches and being alone, like emotional well-being, are measured for yesterday, which may enhance their importance in the regressions. At the other extreme, being a college graduate is associated with high life evaluation but has only a small association with positive and blue affect and a (perhaps) counterintuitive relation with stress; all other factors being equal, college graduates report more stress than nongraduates. The Gallup World Poll found high levels of stress in high-GDP countries (16). Religion has a substantial influence on improving positive affect and reducing reports of stress, but no effect on reducing sadness or worry. Females report slightly higher positive affect and life evaluation, but also more blue affect and much more stress. The presence of children at home is associated with significant increases in stress, sadness, and worry (6). As reported recently, older people enjoy greater emotional well-being, most notably a pronounced reduction in the experience of stress and anger (17). Smoking is an impressively strong predictor of low well-being—especially its emotional dimensions—even when income and education are controlled for. A propensity to smoke is in part genetically determined (18) and is a known indicator of a tense personality (19, 20). Fig. 1 and Table 2 characterize the relationship between the dimensions of subjective well-being and household income. Fig. 1 presents averages over eight income groups for the three aspects of emotional well-being and for the Cantril ladder measure of life evaluation. Here blue affect and stress are converted to their complements, not blue and stress-free, so that higher values in the figure always refer to better psychological outcomes. Income is converted to an annual basis and plotted on a log scale. (The midpoints of each income range, used only in the figure, are imputed assuming that the underlying distribution of income is lognormal; the figure shows vertical lines for the top three interval limits.) Stress is the average of a yes/no response to the question: “Did you experience a lot of stress yesterday?” Thus, Fig. 1 shows the percentage of the population in each income group who did not report experiencing this emotion on the previous day. Not blue is 1 minus the average of the percentage reporting sadness and worry. The right-hand axis shows the average score on the ladder, with values ranging from 0 to 11. Table 2. Tests for income satiation of life evaluation and emotional well-being Fig. 1. Positive affect, blue affect, stress, and life evaluation in relation to household income. Positive affect is the average of the fractions of the population reporting happiness, smiling, and enjoyment. “Not blue” is 1 minus the average of the fractions of the population reporting worry and sadness. “Stress free” is the fraction of the population who did not report stress for the previous day. These three hedonic measures are marked on the left-hand scale. The ladder is the average reported number on a scale of 0–10, marked on the right-hand scale. Fig. 1 shows that for all measures of experienced well-being, individuals in the lower- income groups do worse on average than those above them, but that those in the top two groups do not differ. For the two top categories to be equal, the entire range of the second category must lie above the satiation point. This observation implies that emotional well-being satiates somewhere in the third category of income from the top. We infer that beyond about $75,000/y, there is no improvement whatever in any of the three measures of emotional well-being. In contrast, the figure shows a fairly steady rise in life evaluation with log income over the entire range; the effects of income on individuals’ life evaluations show no satiation, at least to an amount well over $120,000. Table 2 reports a formal test of satiation for the four measures, showing how the second-to-top income group (annual income $90,000–$120,000) differs from the group immediately below it ($60,000–$90,000) and from the group immediately above it (> $120,000). Positive affect, blue affect, and Cantril ladder score are all significantly improved in the first comparison with the exception of stress, which appears to satiate at a lower income level, roughly $60,000. In comparisons of the top two categories, only the ladder score shows a significant improvement with higher income. The small t values are remarkable in these very large samples. We conclude that lack of money brings both emotional misery and low life evaluation; similar results were found for anger. Beyond ~$75,000 in the contemporary United States, however, higher income is neither the road to experienced happiness nor the road to the relief of unhappiness or stress, although higher income continues to improve individuals’ life evaluations. Below $75,000, many factors become gradually worse, at least on average. For example, the emotional pain associated with ill health depends on income; for those reporting a monthly income of at least $3,000 (about two-thirds of households), the fractions reporting blue affect with and without headaches are 38% and 19%, respectively, a difference of 19 percentage points. The corresponding values for those with a monthly income of <$1,000 (about 10% of households) are 70% and 38%, a difference of 32%. Table 3 shows that the pain of some of life's misfortunes, including asthma, divorce, and being alone, is significantly exacerbated by poverty; even the benefits of the weekend are less for the poor. Similar results apply to stress and positive affect. Table 3. Poverty exacerbates the effect of adverse circumstances: Average percentage of people reporting a lot of sadness and worry yesterday, by income group and condition Discussion The data for positive and blue affect provide an unexpectedly sharp answer to our original question. More money does not necessarily buy more happiness, but less money is associated with emotional pain. Perhaps $75,000 is a threshold beyond which further increases in income no longer improve individuals’ ability to do what matters most to their emotional well-being, such as spending time with people they like, avoiding pain and disease, and enjoying leisure. According to the ACS, mean (median) US household income was $71,500 ($52,000) in 2008, and about a third of households were above the $75,000 threshold. It also is likely that when income rises beyond this value, the increased ability to purchase positive experiences is balanced, on average, by some negative effects. A recent psychological study using priming methods provided suggestive evidence of a possible association between high income and a reduced ability to savor small pleasures (21). When interpreting our findings, it is essential to distinguish changes from differences. Our data speak only to differences; they do not imply that people will not be happy with a raise from $100,000 to $150,000, or that they will be indifferent to an equivalent drop in income. Changes of income in the high range certainly have emotional consequences. What the data suggest is that above a certain level of stable income, individuals’ emotional well-being is constrained by other factors in their temperament and life circumstances. We observe a qualitative difference between our measures of emotional well-being and of life evaluation—the former satiates with high income, whereas the latter does not. This observation underscores the importance of the distinction between the judgments individuals make when they think about their life and the feelings that they experience as they live it. As might be expected, the former is sensitive to socioeconomic status, whereas the latter is sensitive to circumstances that evoke positive and negative emotions, such as spending time with others and caring for a sick relative. Several authors have commented on a related difference between two questions that are often used in surveys of subjective well-being: “How satisfied are you with your life?” and “How happy are you these days?” (8, 22, 23). The common conclusion is that income is more strongly related to satisfaction than to happiness, but the difference that we found in the present study is unusually sharp. We speculate that the Cantril ladder of life is a purer measure of life evaluation than the life satisfaction question, which has an emotional aspect, and that the reports of the emotions of yesterday provide a purer measure of emotional well-being than the standard happiness question. If both aspects of subjective well-being are considered important, then the separation of the measures is an advantage. The relevance of subjective well-being as a guide to policy is a contentious issue, on which we do not take a position. If measures of well-being are to be used to assess human welfare and to guide policy, the present findings raise the question of whether life evaluation or emotional well-being is better suited to these aims. The Cantril ladder is a serious contender for the best tool for measuring the degree to which individuals view themselves as achieving their goals, both material and other. But emotional well-being also is clearly important for individuals and for policy, and here there are choices as well. Not everyone will agree that enhancing the happiness experienced by those who are already quite happy is a legitimate policy objective. The policy goal of reducing suffering is likely to raise fewer objections, and measures of emotional pain may be useful for that purpose. This topic merits serious debate. Materials and Methods The survey involved a telephone interview using a dual-frame random-digit dial methodology that included cell phone numbers from all 50 US states. Interviews were conducted between 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM (local time), with most done in the evening. Up to five callbacks were made in the case of no answer. Spanish language interviews were conducted when appropriate. Approximately 1,000 interviews were completed daily from January 2 through December 30, 2009. The questionnaire covered many topics of interest to the Gallup Organization and Healthways Corporation, including basic demographic information, participants’ opinions about the current economic climate and their personal financial situation, information about past diseases, and other topics. Life evaluation was assessed using Cantril's Self-Anchoring Scale (the ladder), worded as follows: “Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you, and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?” (15). Questions about emotional well-being had yes/no response options and were worded as follows: “Did you experience the following feelings during a lot of the day yesterday? How about _____?” Each of several emotions (e.g., enjoyment, stress) was reported separately. The positive affect score was the average of the reports of enjoyment and happiness and of a dichotomous question about the frequency of smiling: “Did you smile or laugh a lot yesterday?” The blue affect score was the average of worry and sadness. To broaden coverage and representativeness, cell phones were part of the sampling design. Relative to land lines, the response rate for cell phones was typically lower. Of all calls that resulted in contacts with an eligible candidate, 31% of the candidates agreed to be interviewed; of these, 90% completed the entire interview. Despite the sampling limitations, available evidence suggests that the estimates of population parameters were not compromised; for example, the survey predicted recent election results within an acceptable margin of error. Acknowledgments We thank Carol Graham, Richard Nisbett, Norbert Schwarz, and Arthur Stone for their comments. Special thanks to James Harter, one of the authors of the Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, for his contribution to the research and for his comments on this report. We thank the Gallup Organization and Healthways Corporation for access to the survey results. This work was supported by the Gallup Organization and by National Institute on Aging Grant AG024928-06. Footnotes 1 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: kahneman{at}princeton.edu . To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: . Author contributions: D.K. and A.D. designed research; performed research; analyzed data; and wrote the paper. The authors declare no conflict of interest. Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. ||||| A rooftop deck is seen in Washington in this file photo. (Benjamin C. Tankersley for The Washington Post) Another week, another breathless report showing how darn expensive and wealthy D.C. is. Last week, we reported that D.C. ranked 10th in the most millionaires in the country per capita category when compared with states. (Maryland had the most, and Virginia came in at No. 6.) This week, a report from Cheat Sheet says D.C. has the third-highest percentage of households earning at least $150,000 a year among cities with at least 500,000 people. San Francisco and San Jose ranked first and second, respectively. Cheat Sheet then determined how much a household would need to earn a year in order to live “comfortably.” The report used $75,000 as the “magic salary number” based on a 2010 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study indicating that someone’s day-to-day emotional well-being doesn’t increase after a household income hits the $75,000 threshold. Cheat Sheet then adjusted that income level up or down using a cost-of-living calculator and comparing each city to Phoenix — “a city with a moderate cost of living and a median income that’s close to the national average.” From there, it concluded a person would need $108,092 to live comfortably in D.C. (Note: The report indicates an individual would need this amount to live comfortably, while the 2010 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study determined that $75,000 was the amount of money a household needs to hit the happiness threshold.) Here’s how the cost of comfortable living in D.C. compares with the other most expensive locations.

To live comfortably in America's richest city, you'll need $124,561 a year. That's according to a CheatSheet analysis, which defines the wealthiest cities as those with the highest percentage of people making more than $150,000 per year, the Washington Post reports. The analysis also reveals how much you need to make to live comfortably in those cities. The findings are based in part on a 2010 study that says daily "emotional well-being" doesn't climb with income once a household makes at least $75,000; CheatSheet tweaked that figure based on the idea that Phoenix is a fairly "average" city when it comes to income and cost of living. Here are the cities ranked by richness, plus the salaries needed for comfort (which don't necessarily follow the same order): San Francisco: $124,561 San Jose: $115,515 Washington, DC: $108,092 Seattle: $93,634 San Diego: $101,984. Boston: $106,082 Click for the full list.

The Navy previously organized itself into aircraft carrier battle groups (CVBGs) and Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs). An ARG typically included 3 amphibious ships that together were capable of embarking a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), which is a force of about 2,200 Marines, their ground-combat equipment, and an aircraft detachment. ARGs traditionally operated overseas in the company of CVBGs. Navy officials more recently decided that the CVBG/ARG combination offered insufficient flexibility for deploying significant naval capability in several locations around the world at the same time. They also decided that with the increasing capabilities of Navy ships, naval formations other than the large CVBG/ARG combination could now be sufficient to perform certain missions. As a result, the Navy has implemented a new Global Concept of Operations (CONOPS) that reorganized the Navy into a larger number of independently deployable, strike-capable formations. The most significant change was the conversion of ARGs into independently deployable formations called Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs). An ESG is an ARG that has been reinforced with 3 surface combatants, an attack submarine carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles, and perhaps a land-based P-3 Orion long-range maritime patrol aircraft. The Global CONOPS also created independently deployable surface strike groups (SSGs), each consisting of a few surface combatants (most or all Tomahawk-armed), and independent operations by 4 Trident SSGN submarines that have been converted to carry Tomahawks and special operations forces. CVBGs under the Global CONOPS plan were redesignated Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs). Implementing the Global CONOPS changed the Navy from a fleet with 11 independently deployable CVBG/ARG formations into one with 20 major independently deployable strike groups (11 CSGs and 9 ESGs) and additional independently deployable capabilities in the form of SSGs and Trident SSGNs. The Navy's traditional means of maintaining forward-deployed presence had been the standard six-month deployment. Although the six-month limit on deployment length and the predictability of the rotational deployment schedule were considered key to the Navy's ability to maintain its forward deployments while meeting its personnel recruiting and retention goals, Navy officials concluded that the deterrent value of forward-deployed naval forces might be enhanced by making naval forward deployments more flexible and less predictable. Navy officials also concluded that orienting Navy readiness toward maintaining standard six-month deployments resulted in a fleet that offered insufficient flexibility for surging large numbers of naval forces in a short time to respond to major regional contingencies. As a result, although six-month (and now seven-month) deployments will still take place, the Navy has put more flexibility into its deployment plans by deploying some CSGs and ESGs for less than or more than six or seven months, as operational needs dictate. The Navy has implemented an initiative called the Fleet Response Plan (FRP) that is intended to increase the Navy's ability to surge multiple formations in response to emergencies. Under the FRP, CSGs and ESGs that have just returned from deployments will be kept, for a time, on alert for potential short-notice redeployment if needed, and CSGs and ESGs that are approaching their next scheduled deployment will be maintained in a higher readiness status so that they, too, could be deployed on short notice, prior to their scheduled deployment dates. Implementing the FRP with 11 CSGs, the Navy says, permits the Navy to deploy up to 6 CSGs within 30 days, and an additional CSG within another 60 days after that. For this reason, the FRP is also referred to as "6+1." A February 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report stated: The Navy has taken several positive steps toward implementing a sound management approach for FRP, but has not developed implementation goals, fully developed performance measures, or comprehensively assessed and identified the resources required to achieve FRP goals. GAO's prior work has shown that key elements of a sound management approach include: defining clear missions and desired outcomes, establishing implementation goals, measuring performance, and aligning activities with resources. The Navy has made progress in implementing FRP since GAO's prior reports. For example, it has established a goal of having three carrier strike groups deployed, three ready to deploy within 30 days of being ordered to do so, and one more within 90 days (referred to as 3+3+1). The Navy also has established a framework to set implementation goals for all forces, established some performance measures that are linked to the FRP phases, and begun efforts to identify needed resources. However, the Navy has not yet established a specific implementation goal for expeditionary strike groups and other forces. In addition, the Navy has not fully developed performance measures to enable it to assess whether carrier strike groups have achieved adequate readiness levels to deploy in support of the 3+3+1 goal. Moreover, the Navy has not fully identified the resources required to achieve FRP goals. Until the Navy's management approach fully incorporates the key elements, the Navy may not be able to measure how well FRP is achieving its goals or develop budget requests based on the resources needed to achieve expected readiness levels. The Navy has not fully considered the long-term risks and tradeoffs associated with the changes made as FRP has been implemented, such as carrier operational and maintenance cycles and force structure. The Navy has extended the intervals between carrier dry-dock maintenance periods from 6 years to 8 years and begun a test program that will extend some carrier dry-dock intervals to as much as 12 years, and it has lengthened operational cycles for carriers and their airwings to 32 months. GAO previously advocated that the Department of Defense adopt a risk management approach to aid in its decision making that includes assessing the risks of various courses of action. However, the Navy has not fully considered the long-term risks and tradeoffs of these recent changes because it has not performed a comprehensive assessment of how the changes, taken as a whole, might affect its ability to meet FRP goals and perform its missions. In addition, while the Navy has developed force structure plans that include two upcoming periods when the number of available aircraft carriers temporarily drops from 11 to 10, the plans included optimistic assumptions about the length of the gaps and the availability of existing carriers and did not fully analyze how the Navy would continue to meet FRP goals with fewer carriers. Until the Navy develops plans that use realistic assumptions and accurately identify the levels of risk the Navy is willing to accept during these gap periods, senior Navy leadership may not have the information it needs to make informed tradeoff decisions. Homeporting Navy ships in overseas locations, called forward homeporting, can reduce transit times between home port and operating area and thus permit the Navy to provide a larger number of ship days on station in overseas operating areas. The U.S. Navy's principal forward homeporting location is Japan, where the Navy since the early 1970s has forward homeported a CVBG (now a CSG) and an ARG (now the core of an ESG). The Navy traditionally has also forward-homeported a small number of other ships, such as fleet command ships and repair ships, in forward locations such as Italy and the U.S. territory of Guam. The Navy in recent years has forward-homeported four mine warfare ships at Bahrain in the Persian Gulf and three attack submarines at Guam. Increasing the number of ships forward-homeported in the Pacific can improve the Navy's ability to respond to contingencies in locations such as the Korean Peninsula or the Taiwan Strait. A March 2002 CBO report presented an option for homeporting as many as 11 attack submarines at Guam. The final report of the 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) directed the Navy to provide at least six aircraft carriers and 60% of its submarines in the Pacific. The Navy is implementing these two measures, which do not necessarily require additional forward homeporting. (They can be accomplished, for example, by moving ships from Atlantic Fleet home ports to San Diego or the Puget Sound area.) The Navy in recent years has experimented with the concept of long-duration deployments with crew rotation. This concept, which the Navy calls Sea Swap, is another way to reduce the amount of time that deployed ships spend transiting to and from operating areas. Sea Swap involves deploying Navy ships overseas for periods such as 12, 18, or 24 months rather than 6 or 7 months, and rotating successive crews out to the ships for 6-month periods of duty. Sea Swap can reduce the number of ships the Navy needs to have in its inventory to maintain one such ship on station in an overseas operating area by 20% or more. Potential disadvantages of Sea Swap include extensive wear and tear on the deployed ship due to lengthy periods of time at sea, a reduced sense of crew "ownership" of a given ship (which might reduce a crew's incentive to keep the ship in good condition), and reduced opportunities for transit port calls (which have diplomatic value and are beneficial for recruiting and retention). The Navy in recent years has conducted Sea Swap experiments with surface combatants and mine warfare ships that Navy officials have characterized as successful in terms of ship days on station, total costs, ship maintenance and material condition, and crew re-enlistment rates during deployment. In 2004, it was reported that a review of the Sea Swap experiment conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses found that although Sea Swap was successful in these terms, crew members participating in the experiment who were surveyed viewed the concept negatively and indicated they would be less likely to stay in the Navy if all deployments were conducted this way. The Navy made changes in later Sea Swap experiments to address issues that led to crew dissatisfaction, including lost liberty calls and increased training and work. In 2005, Navy officials testified that applying Sea Swap somewhat widely throughout the fleet could help permit the fleet to be reduced from a then-planned range of 290 to 375 ships down to a range of 260 to 325 ships. More recently, Navy officials have expressed less enthusiasm for extending Sea Swap beyond surface combatants. A July 2006 press article reported that the Navy may limit Sea Swap in the surface fleet to smaller combatants such as patrol craft, Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs), and frigates. The Navy plans to use Sea Swap to keep two of its four SSGNs continuously deployed. A May 2008 GAO report stated: Rotational crewing represents a transformational cultural change for the Navy. While the Navy has provided leadership in some rotational crewing programs, the Navy has not fully established a comprehensive management approach to coordinate and integrate rotational crewing efforts across the department and among various types of ships.... The Navy has not assigned clear leadership and accountability for rotational crewing or designated an implementation team to ensure that rotational crewing receives the attention necessary to be effective. Without a comprehensive management approach, the Navy may not be able to lead a successful transformation of its crewing culture. The Navy has promulgated crew exchange instructions for some types of ships that have provided some specific guidance and increased accountability. However, the Navy has not developed an overarching instruction that provides high-level guidance for rotational crewing initiatives and it has not consistently addressed rotational crewing in individual ship-class concepts of operations.... The Navy has conducted some analyses of rotational crewing; however, it has not developed a systematic method for analyzing, assessing and reporting findings on the potential for rotational crewing on current and future ships. Despite using a comprehensive data-collection and analysis plan in the Atlantic Fleet Guided Missile Destroyer Sea Swap, the Navy has not developed a standardized data-collection plan that would be used to analyze all types of rotational crewing, and life-cycle costs of rotational crewing alternatives have not been evaluated. The Navy has also not adequately assessed rotational crewing options for future ships. As new ships are in development, DOD guidance requires that an analysis of alternatives be completed. These analyses generally include an evaluation of the operational effectiveness and estimated costs of alternatives. In recent surface ship acquisitions, the Navy has not consistently assessed rotational crewing options. In the absence of this, cost-effective force structure assessments are incomplete and the Navy does not have a complete picture of the number of ships it needs to acquire. The Navy has collected and disseminated lessons learned from some rotational crewing experiences; however, some ship communities have relied on informal processes. The Atlantic Sea Swap initiative used a systematic process to capture lessons learned. However, in other ship communities the actions were not systematic and did not use the Navy Lessons Learned System. By not systematically recording and sharing lessons learned from rotational crewing efforts, the Navy risks repeating mistakes and could miss opportunities to more effectively implement crew rotations. Another strategy for increasing the percentage of time that Navy ships can be deployed is multiple crewing, which involves maintaining an average of more than one crew for each Navy ship. Potential versions include having two crews for each ship (dual crewing), 3 crews for every 2 ships, 4 crews for every 3 ships, 5 crews for every 4 ships, or other combinations, such as 8 crews for every 5 ships. The most basic version of Sea Swap maintains an average of one crew for each ship in inventory, but Sea Swap could be combined with multiple crewing. For many years, the Navy's nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) have been operated successfully with dual crews. The above-mentioned March 2002 CBO report presented the option of applying multiple crewing to the attack submarine fleet. Potential disadvantages of multiple crewing include the costs of recruiting, training, and retaining additional crews, the difficulty of achieving fully realistic training using land-based simulators (whose use would be more necessary because a given crew would not always have access to a ship for training), a reduced sense of crew "ownership" of a given ship, and increased wear and tear on the ship due to more intensive use of the ship at sea (which can reduce ship life). The Navy plans to use dual crewing for its first few LCSs, and then switch the LCS fleet to a "4-3-1" crewing strategy when the total number of LCSs grows to a larger number. Under the 4-3-1 plan, four crews would be used for every three LCSs to keep one of those three LCSs continuously deployed. The Navy is experimenting with a concept, first announced in 2006, called global fleet stations, or GFSs. The core of a GFS is an amphibious ship or high-speed sealift ship that is forward deployed to a region of interest. Smaller Navy ships, such as LCSs, might then operate in conjunction with this core ship to perform various missions. The Navy in 2007 is conducting six-month pilot GFS in the Caribbean built around the high-speed sealift ship Swift, and plans to follow this in late 2007 with a second, year-long, GFS in the Gulf of Guinea, off the western coast of Africa, that is to be built around an amphibious ship. The Navy states that the GFS concept offers a means to increase regional maritime security through the cooperative efforts of joint, inter-agency, and multinational partners, as well as Non-Governmental Organizations.... From its sea base, each GFS would serve as a self-contained headquarters for regional operations with the capacity to repair and service all ships, small craft, and aircraft assigned. Additionally, the GFS might provide classroom space, limited medical facilities, an information fusion center, and some combat service support capability. The GFS concept provides a leveraged, high-yield sea based option that achieves a persistent presence in support of national objectives. Additionally, it complements more traditional CSG/ESG training and deployment cycles. Potential oversight issues for Congress include the following: How might the changes discussed above affected the planned size and structure of the fleet? For what kinds of ships should Navy use Sea Swap or multiple crewing? How will FRP and the forward-homeporting of additional ships affect the distribution of Navy ship overhaul and repair work? How many additional ships, of what types, should the Navy forward homeport in the Pacific, and precisely where?

The Navy has implemented new kinds of naval formations, more flexible forward-deployment schedules, and a ship readiness plan (called the Fleet Response Plan, or FRP) for surge-deploying several aircraft carriers in a short period of time to respond to contingencies. The Navy has also forward-homeported additional ships, experimented with long-duration deployments with crew rotation (which the Navy calls Sea Swap), investigated multiple-crewing of ships, and is experimenting with a new forward-deployment concept called global fleet stations, or GFSs. These actions raise several potential issues for Congress. This report will be updated as events warrant.

The U.S. central banking system was established in 1913 by the Federal Reserve Act (P.L. 63-43). Congress created the Federal Reserve (popularly known as the "Fed") as an independent entity to attend to the nation's credit and monetary needs without undue influence from political pressures. Today, the Fed's monetary policy operations are intended to promote stability in the nation's economy; its supervisory and regulatory functions are intended to provide a safer, more flexible banking system; and its work as fiscal agent for the government and clearinghouse for private sector financial transactions promotes efficiency in the overall banking system. In keeping with its independence within the federal government, the system operates without appropriations from Congress. Its income derives primarily from interest on government securities acquired through monetary policy operations, and fees for banking services, with any excess income returned to the Treasury. The current structure of the system has three major components established by the original act. First, a Board of Governors oversees the whole system and has responsibility for monetary policy. Second, there are 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which carry out supervision and examination of commercial banks that are Fed members. The member banks, all national banks and all state-chartered banks that choose to be members of the system, make up the third component. The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System was established as a federal government agency. The Administration and Congress can have a significant influence on the Fed through control over appointments to the seven-member board. Each of the seven governors is appointed by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The full term of service for a board seat is 14 years and governors may be named to a vacant seat at any point during the term. The appointments are staggered with one term expiring every two years. Governors serving a full term may not be reappointed. Two members hold the leadership positions of chairman and vice chairman of the board. They are designated by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. The term of service for both leadership offices is four years; an office holder may be reappointed. These terms do not coincide with that of the President or each other. Although the board chairman is considered quite powerful, each governor has one vote on the board. When selecting a governor, the President is required by law to give due regard to a fair representation of financial, agricultural, industrial, and commercial interests, and geographical divisions of the country. No more than one governor can be selected from any one Federal Reserve district. The members of the Board of Governors cannot hold any office, position, or employment in any member bank during the time they are in office and for two years after. The board chairman is Ben S. Bernanke, whose term as chairman ends in January 2014 and whose term as governor expires in 2020. The vice chairman is Janet L. Yellen, whose term as vice chairman expires in October 2014 and whose term as governor ends in 2024. A central responsibility of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is the formulation of monetary policy. In broad terms, monetary policy involves "influencing the monetary and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates." In addition, when the Federal Reserve was established, it was given the role of "lender of last resort" to the nation's financial system. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) is the policy making body for open market operations—the principal means through which monetary policy is conducted. The seven board members plus five of the 12 Federal Reserve Bank presidents make up the FOMC. The president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (New York Fed) is a permanent member because the New York Fed executes the Federal Reserve's monetary policy decisions through open market operations. The remaining four seats are filled by the other 11 presidents on a rotating basis for one-year terms. All of the presidents participate in the FOMC meetings and contribute their views, but only the five members vote. The committee elects a chairman and vice chairman. Traditionally, the chairman of the Board of Governors is elected chairman of the FOMC and the New York Fed's president is elected vice chairman. Open market operations involve the purchase and sale of government securities in the secondary market by the Federal Reserve. The operations are conducted to keep the federal funds rate close to a target rate that is set by the FOMC. The Federal Reserve System's portfolio is composed of U.S. Treasury securities, federal agency securities, and bankers acceptances. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York holds the portfolio and through its trading desk conducts open market operations pursuant to directives of the FOMC. Two less often used monetary policy instruments may be employed by the Federal Reserve—legal reserve requirements and the discount window. Depository financial institutions are required by law to set aside reserves in certain proportions against demand deposits. What is held in reserve affects the availability of loanable funds. An increase in the requirement would mean banks and thrifts would have less money to lend and would tend to restrain credit conditions. Alternatively, lowering the requirement would increase the proportion of deposits that could be lent and would tend to ease credit conditions. Reserve requirements are rarely changed because as a monetary policy tool they are considered too blunt an instrument. The discount window is the Federal Reserve facility for lending to eligible depository institutions. An institution may borrow funds for short periods from a Federal Reserve Bank to augment its reserve balances for interbank transactions. The discount rate is the interest rate charged for this short-term loan. The rate is set by each Bank subject to approval by the Board of Governors; over time, it has become common practice for the rate to be uniform for all 12 Reserve Banks. A higher rate discourages borrowing and in turn lending by banks and thrifts. Currently, the discount window serves mainly a signaling function that acts as a complement to open market operations. In response to the financial crisis that emerged in 2007, the Federal Reserve employed several new tools (in addition to the traditional ones) designed to support the liquidity of depository and other financial institutions and to foster improved conditions in financial markets. The implementation of these new tools resulted in significant changes to the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. During the crisis, the Federal Reserve used its broad emergency authority under Section 13(3) of the Federal Reserve Act to authorize many actions that targeted parts of the financial system outside of the banking system. The Federal Reserve has stated it will continue to employ its policy tools as necessary to support the economic recovery. The Board of Governors has a broad range of supervisory and regulatory responsibilities that affect the entire U.S. banking system. The board seeks to promote safety and soundness, ensure compliance with laws and regulation, and foster the fair and efficient delivery of services to customers of financial institutions. Federal Reserve Board regulations implement policies set by Congress that are defined in legislation and referred to the Federal Reserve for enforcement. For example, the Fed has implementation and enforcement responsibilities for the Truth in Lending Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, and the Fair Housing Act. The board coordinates its activities with other federal and state regulatory agencies. The board has the power to examine all member banks and their affiliates and to require periodic reports from them. The board has the primary responsibility for supervising and regulating bank holding companies and state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. In addition, the board supervises corporations through which U.S. banks conduct operations abroad, and the U.S. operations of foreign banks. The board delegates many supervisory duties to the 12 Reserve Banks subject to the board's policy and oversight. An example is the task of conducting bank examinations. The Board of Governors has broad oversight and supervisory authority over the operations and activities of the Federal Reserve Banks. The board appoints three of the nine directors of each Bank. The board conducts annual financial examinations of the Reserve Banks. Major expenditures, such as building construction, must be approved by the board. The salaries of Reserve Bank presidents and first vice presidents are subject to board approval. The 12 Federal Reserve Banks carry out the day-to-day operations of the Federal Reserve System. Within each geographic district a city was designated as the location of the Reserve Bank. The act also provided for branch offices to support the operations of the Federal Reserve Banks. The 12 Banks are located in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Richmond, Atlanta, Chicago, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, Dallas, and San Francisco. The Board of Governors has established 25 branches over the years. Each Federal Reserve Bank is managed by a nine-member board of directors that is divided into three classes: A, B, and C. They serve three-year terms on a staggered basis. The three Class A and Class B directors are elected by the member banks in each district. Three Class C directors are appointed by the Board of Governors. The three Class A directors represent the interests of the member banks. The remaining six directors represent the general public and are selected with due consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor, and consumers. Class B and C directors cannot be officers, directors or employees of any banking institution. In addition, Class C directors cannot hold stock in a bank or bank holding company. The board designates one Class C director as chairman and another as deputy chairman. Each Reserve Bank is headed by a president nominated by the nine directors subject to the approval of the Board of Governors. The District Banks are the principal medium through which the general supervisory powers of the Fed are executed. Federal Reserve Banks conduct on-site examinations of state member banks and inspections of bank holding companies and their nonbank subsidiaries. The Federal Reserve Banks provide fiscal agency and depository services to the federal government. For example, as fiscal agents they issue, transfer, exchange and redeem government securities and savings bonds. As depositories, they provide transaction accounts for the Treasury and they collect and disburse funds on behalf of the federal government. The 12 Reserve Banks provide banking services to depository financial institutions. The Banks maintain reserve and clearing accounts for banks and thrifts. The Banks play a major role in the nation's payment system. Reserve Banks move coin and currency into and out of circulation. They also participate in the collection and processing of millions of checks daily. The Banks are an integral part of electronic funds transfer systems, clearing and settling electronically originated credits and debits. The income of the Federal Reserve Banks is primarily generated from interest on government securities acquired through open market operations. In addition, the Monetary Control Act of 1980 requires the Federal Reserve to charge fees for various services. From their earnings the Reserve Banks pay their operating and other expenses. The Banks are assessed semiannually by the Board of Governors for the board's costs and expenditures. The residual earnings are turned over to the U.S. Treasury. Payments to the Treasury in 2009 totaled $47.4 billion. The Federal Reserve Act requires all national banks to be members of the Federal Reserve System. National banks are banks chartered by the federal government. Membership by state-chartered banks is optional. If state-chartered banks elect to become members they must meet standards set by the Board of Governors. As of June 30, 2009, there were 1,502 national banks and 844 state-chartered Federal Reserve member banks. While these member banks represented only about 34% of all federally insured U.S. banks, they held about 80% of all insured bank assets. The 12 Reserve Banks are "owned" by their member banks. The stock of the Federal Reserve Banks is held entirely by the member banks in their respective districts. Ownership of this stock does not carry the usual rights of control and financial interest ordinarily associated with being a shareholder in a corporation operated for the purpose of making a profit. Each member bank buys stock in its district Reserve Bank equal to 6% of its own capital and surplus. Of this amount, 3% must be paid-in and 3% is subject to call by the Board of Governors. The stock may not be sold or pledged as security for loans. Dividends are set by law at the rate of 6% per year on paid-in stock. Throughout the history of the Federal Reserve System, Congress has been concerned with achieving a balance between assuring independence for the system's operations and making the agency accountable for its actions. Attention to Federal Reserve accountability has resulted in increased disclosure by the Fed and dialogue between the Fed and Congress on monetary policy and the agency's operations overall. Avenues of communication and oversight, both formal and informal, have developed over time. Aside from its appointment role, Congress exercises oversight in a variety of ways. The Federal Banking Agency Audit Act ( P.L. 95-320 ) was enacted in 1978 to enhance congressional oversight responsibilities. The law gave the General Accounting Office (GAO; now the Government Accountability Office) the authority to audit the Board of Governors, the Reserve Banks and branches. Such audits are limited by statute, however. Congressional oversight on these matters is exercised through the requirement for reports and through semi-annual monetary policy hearings, described further below. The Federal Reserve publishes numerous reports during the year which are important to the oversight work of Congress. The Board of Governors publishes an annual report of activities which includes the minutes of the FOMC meetings. The board is required by law to report annually on compliance with its consumer regulations. The Federal Reserve issues reports and surveys on a variety of subjects, for example an annual survey of bank fees and services and a report on the profitability of credit card operations. The Fed is frequently called upon to testify on a wide range of issues affecting the economy and the banking industry. In addition, a monetary policy reporting system, accomplished through hearings, was made a matter of legislative mandate in the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977 ( P.L. 95-188 ). The process was modified by provisions embodied in P.L. 95-523 , the Humphrey-Hawkins Act of 1978. The provisions are designed to enhance the dialogue on monetary policy between Congress and the Federal Reserve through a more detailed reporting and evaluation process than existed earlier. Further, the provisions are intended to contribute to the ability of Congress to take a coordinated look at government economic policies. The two goals are sought through a system of regularly scheduled oversight hearings at which the Federal Reserve reports to the banking committees on its policy intention. The banking committees in turn report to their respective chambers. The statutory requirements for semi-annual monetary policy reporting, the board's annual report and several other reports would have been discontinued by provisions of the 1995 Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act ( P.L. 104-66 ). Provisions contained in P.L. 106-569 , enacted on December 27, 2000, reinstated these requirements. P.L. 111-203 , the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, was enacted on July 21, 2010. The omnibus financial regulatory reform law contains provisions that change the supervisory authority of the Federal Reserve Board and affect the operations and structure of Federal Reserve Board and the 12 Reserve Banks. Currently, the Federal Reserve Board has the primary responsibility for supervising and regulating bank holding companies and state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. Under the provisions of P.L. 111-203 , the Federal Reserve will now regulate both bank and thrift (savings and loan) holding companies. The Federal Reserve will continue to regulate state-chartered banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System. In addition, the law authorizes the Federal Reserve to regulate systemically significant firms identified by the Financial Stability Oversight Council (provisions in P.L. 111-203 create this new council). P.L. 111-203 establishes a second vice chairman position for the Board of Governors. A member of the board would be designated by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to serve as vice chairman for supervision. The duties of this vice chairman would include developing policy recommendations regarding supervision and regulation for the board. The vice chairman of supervision will report to Congress semiannually on the efforts of the board with respect to the conduct of supervision and regulation. The law contains additional oversight and disclosure provisions with the intent of increasing the transparency of Federal Reserve operations. Included is a required GAO audit of all of the 13(3) emergency lending by the Federal Reserve during the recent financial crisis and the authority for future GAO audits of 13(3) emergency lending, discount window lending, and open market transactions. Provisions delay disclosure of the identity of borrowers and the terms of loans. P.L. 111-203 changes the procedures for choosing the Federal Reserve Bank presidents. As was described above, each Federal Reserve Bank is managed by a nine-member board of directors that is divided into three classes: A, B, and C. Class A and Class B directors are elected by the member banks in each district. The three Class C directors are appointed by the Board of Governors. The three Class A directors represent the interests of the member banks and the remaining six directors represent the general public. Currently, Reserve Bank presidents are appointed by the nine directors. Under P.L. 111-203 , Class A directors will no longer vote for Reserve Bank presidents. In addition, the law requires the GAO to conduct a study of the current system for appointing directors to examine whether the system effectively represents the general public.

In 1913, Congress created the Federal Reserve System to serve as the central bank for the United States. The Federal Reserve formulates the nation's monetary policy, supervises and regulates banks, and provides a variety of financial services to depository financial institutions and the federal government. The system comprises three major components: the Board of Governors, a network of 12 Federal Reserve Banks, and member banks. Congress created the Federal Reserve as an independent agency to enable the central bank to carry out its responsibilities protected from excessive political and private pressures. At the same time, by law and practice, the Federal Reserve is accountable to Congress. The seven members of the board are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. Congress routinely monitors the Federal Reserve System through formal and informal oversight activities. This report examines the structure and operations of the major components of the Federal Reserve System and provides an overview of congressional oversight activities. The report identifies the provisions of P.L. 111-203 (the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act) that affect the structure and operations of the system. This report will be updated as events warrant.

The Internal Revenue Service, under pressure after admitting it targeted anti-tax Tea Party groups for scrutiny in recent years, also had its eye on at least three Democratic-leaning organizations seeking nonprofit status. One of those groups, Emerge America, saw its tax-exempt status denied, forcing it to disclose its donors and pay some taxes. None of the Republican groups have said their applications were rejected. Progress Texas, another of the organizations, faced the same lines of questioning as the Tea Party groups from the same IRS office that issued letters to the Republican-friendly applicants. A third group, Clean Elections Texas, which supports public funding of campaigns, also received IRS inquiries. In a statement late yesterday, the tax agency said it had pooled together the politically active nonpartisan applicants -- including a “minority” that were identified because of their names. “It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views,” the IRS said in its statement. President Barack Obama, in a statement last night, called the IRS employees’ actions “intolerable” and directed Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew to hold “those responsible for these failures accountable.” Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Washington, D.C. Close The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Washington, D.C. Close Open Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in Washington, D.C. Tax agency officials told lawmakers in a briefing yesterday that 471 groups received additional scrutiny, a total that indicates a crackdown on politically active nonprofit groups that extends beyond the Tea Party outfits. Broader Hearings Some lawmakers on Capitol Hill and campaign finance watchdog groups are pressing to expand congressional hearings to encompass everything the IRS is doing concerning nonprofits, including whether such groups should be allowed to spend money on political efforts at all. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who sits on the Senate Finance Committee, which is conducting its own IRS investigation, has introduced legislation with Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski to require all groups spending money on politics to disclose their donors. “These problems will continue as long as there is an absence of clear and enforceable rules,” Wyden told reporters yesterday. “In the absence of clear and enforceable rules the bureaucracy pretty much makes it up as they go along.” Political spending by nonprofits incorporated under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code has increased since the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 removed limits on independent corporate and union spending and other court rulings paved the way for wealthy individuals to spend unlimited sums in elections. $1 Billion Outside groups -- including nonprofit social-welfare groups that don’t disclose their donors -- spent $1 billion in the 2012 elections, three times as much as they did four years earlier, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, based in Washington. “The real problem is that phony 501(c)(4) groups are exploiting the tax laws to protect donors who don’t want to be held accountable for vicious, deceitful political ads,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. In early 2011, the IRS denied the tax-exempt status of an affiliate of the San Francisco-based Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office. The agency said it was disqualified because the group’s activities were “conducted primarily for the benefit of a political party and a private group of individuals, rather than the community as a whole.” Approvals Revoked The decision was a surprise because four of Emerge America’s affiliates and its main headquarters already had been approved as nonprofits. The tax agency on Oct. 21, 2011, revoked those approvals. The national organization and its state affiliates are now incorporated under Section 527 of the tax code. “We didn’t even get the opportunity to answer questions,” said Karen Middleton, president of Emerge America. “We would have welcomed the opportunity to respond to a questionnaire.” An Austin, Texas-based group, Progress Texas, received a letter from the IRS in February 2013 when it sought nonprofit status. The letter came from the agency’s Laguna Niguel, California, office, which sent essentially the same queries to Republican-leaning groups. As with the Tea Party groups, the IRS sought copies of promotional materials, backgrounds of officers, meeting minutes and specifics about activities, such as get-out-the-vote drives, that the organization said it would conduct. Due Diligence Matt Glazer, former executive director, said the questionnaire was time-consuming though not intrusive. “It is up to the IRS and the government to do the due diligence necessary,” Glazer said in a telephone interview yesterday. “I’m not saying it was fun but it was important.” His group was approved. Clean Elections Texas, a Dallas-based group that backs taxpayer funding of elections -- a position that aligns with many Democrats -- also had to answer queries. “The IRS is finally doing its work, that was my feeling about it,” Liz Wally, the group’s executive director, said yesterday in a telephone interview. Her group was also approved for nonprofit status. Two law firms that represent 33 Republican-leaning organizations that say they were targeted by the IRS have said none of their clients was rejected for tax-exempt status. Long Delays Two of the groups gave up after long delays, said Gene Kapp, a spokesman for American Center for Law and Justice. Of the 27 groups the Washington-based firm represents, 15 have been approved and the other 10 are awaiting word from the IRS, Kapp said. Documents made public by lawyers for the Tea Party groups showed that they received letters from three other IRS offices besides Cincinnati -- Washington D.C. and two in California, El Monte and Laguna Niguel. Dan Backer, a Washington-based attorney who represents six Tea Party organizations, said it is “laughable” that low-level employees targeted the Republican-friendly groups. “That’s just not how government works,” he said in a telephone interview. “There’s a boss who said, ’Here is who we are targeting and here is what we are going to ask them.’” The IRS controversy reared up last week when Lois Lerner, the official in charge of overseeing tax-exempt groups, said the agency was wrong to pay special attention to organizations that used key words such as “tea party” or “patriot” or had policy positions on smaller government. Her May 10 disclosure came ahead the Inspector General’s report out yesterday. The report concluded that “ineffective management” allowed the inappropriate criteria to be developed and kept in place for more than 18 months. To contact the reporters on this story: Julie Bykowicz in Washington at [email protected]; Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at [email protected] To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at [email protected] ||||| The IRS targeting of conservative groups is far broader than first reported, with nearly 500 organizations singled out for additional scrutiny, according to two lawmakers briefed by the agency. IRS officials claimed on Friday that roughly 300 groups received additional scrutiny. Reps. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that the number has actually risen to 471. Further, they said it is "unclear" whether Tea Party and other conservative groups are being targeted to this day. The lawmakers disclosed the additional information in a letter Tuesday to Lois Lerner, the IRS official who first disclosed the inappropriate practice. They sent the letter as a highly anticipated watchdog report was released, finding "inappropriate" action at the IRS. The Republican congressmen also revealed that the IRS itself determined their effort was biased against conservatives more than a year ago. "The actions of the IRS are unconscionable and appalling," they wrote. Given the advance knowledge of the program, Issa and Jordan voiced serious concerns about the honesty of top IRS officials and the lack of disciplinary action. The lawmakers said they've learned nobody has been disciplined and that one employee at the Cincinnati office where this program was supposedly started "received a promotion or 'career enhancement.'" They also questioned why top officials never disclosed the targeting effort when the agency conducted an internal review and found, on May 3 of last year, "significant problems in the review process and a substantial bias against conservative groups." They said "at no point" did Lerner or anyone else inform Congress of the findings. And they claimed it appeared Lerner "provided false or misleading information on four separate occasions" in 2012 on the program. They were referring to requests made last year to the IRS about its vetting of Tea Party groups. Lerner and other officials did not reveal the internal concern about the effort at the time, they said. Lawmakers across Capitol Hill were voicing concerns about the IRS program Tuesday, as independent investigators prepared to release a more complete accounting of what they discovered at the IRS. Attorney General Eric Holder said he's ordered the Justice Department to investigate the agency. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said what the agency did is "inexcusable," though he said the agency has also inappropriately targeted left-leaning groups in the past. Issa and Jordan wrote their letter after receiving a briefing from IRS staff. They claimed that the additional scrutiny from the IRS effectively placed Tea Party and other groups "in a state of purgatory where they often languished without action for periods as long as two years." Separate documents have indicated the program started as early as 2010. ||||| Ineffective management at the Internal Revenue Service led to certain groups being singled out for more than 18 months based on their names or mission statements, according to a Treasury Inspector General report obtained by ABC News. IRS officials told IG investigators that their actions were not influenced by any outside officials or agencies. The use of inappropriate criteria to screen applicants resulted in significant delays for groups applying for tax exempt status, and also allowed unnecessary requests for information, the report found. Among the criteria that IRS employees used to flag groups for extra scrutiny was having words like "tea party" or "patriots" in their names, focusing on issues like government spending, debt or taxes, and statements that criticized how the country is being run. "Criteria for selecting applications for the team of specialists should focus on the activities of the organizations and whether they fulfill the requirements of the law," the IG report found. "Using the names or policy positions of organizations is not an appropriate basis for identifying applications for review by the team of specialists." Read highlights of the IG report HERE. As a result, most applications were not processed for more than 13 months, with some groups waiting more than three years for approval. The IRS said in a statement this evening that it "welcomes" the report and "agrees that aspects of the original approach for handling the influx of tax-exempt applications were inappropriate, but it is important to clarify a few points." "Inappropriate shortcuts" were used to identify groups that might be engaged in political activity, the IRS statement admitted, but said most of the groups would likely have been examined the same way regardless of whether those "shortcuts" were used to identify them. "It is also important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views," the IRS statement said. "There was no intent to hide this issue, but rather we waited until TIGTA completed their fact finding, made recommendations, and we reviewed their findings," the statement said. Joseph Grant, the acting commissioner of tax exempt and government entities, wrote in response to the report that the decisions were made in an attempt to increase efficiency, not to target groups with a particular political view. "The mistakes outlined in the report resulted from the lack of a set process for working the increase in advocacy cases and insufficient sensitivity to the implications of some of the decisions made," he wrote. "We believe the front line career employees that made the decisions acted out of a desire for efficiency and not out of any political or partisan view point," he wrote. According to the report, the practice emerged because of insufficient oversight and a lack of knowledge by IRS employees of the rules that governed tax exempt organizations. "[T]he criteria developed showed a lack of knowledge in the Determinations Unit of what activities are allowed by I.R.C. § 501(c)(3) and I.R.C. § 501(c)(4) organizations," the report found, using the tax code designations for tax-exempt organizations. "Determinations Unit employees stated that they considered the Tea Party criterion as a shorthand term for all potential political cases." The report comes in response to requests from several members of Congress to look into whether the IRS had treated conservative or tea party groups unfairly based on their political affiliation. By using criteria like "political sounding names" to select groups for additional scrutiny, the report says that the IRS actually failed to look closely at groups that should have been carefully scrutinized because of the volume of political activity they were engaged in. Other groups that weren't engaged in much political activity were caught in the IRS's dragnet and their applications were severely delayed, the report found. In 58 percent of cases, groups were asked to provide "irrelevant" information in response to inquiries from the IRS. According to the report, Lois Lerner, the Director of Exempt Organizations, found out about the inappropriate criteria for screening groups in June 2011. Lerner immediately changed the IRS's policy to make it more broad, but the team of specialists assigned to the cases changed the criteria again without approval from their superiors, the report found. The report comes as Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that he has ordered an FBI investigation of the IRS's dealings with conservative groups seeking tax exempt status. The order is likely to mean that IRS officials could be subject to FBI interrogation and, possibly, subpoenas. Lawmakers in the House Ways and Means Committee today requested that the IRS provide Congress with documents related to the targeting of conservative groups by May 21. The committee will hold a hearing on the subject on Friday. Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., among other lawmakers, said he is committed to getting to the bottom of what he called the agency's "blatant and thuggish abuse of power."

The IRS is defending itself against the Inspector General's report on its targeting of Tea Party groups, saying they made up only a "minority" of the 471 political nonprofit groups scrutinized. And, hey, three—three!—of those 471 were Democrat-leaning groups, including one, Emerge America, that was actually denied tax-exempt status, Bloomberg reports. "[It is] important to understand that the group of centralized cases included organizations of all political views," the IRS said in a statement. It also said that although "Inappropriate shortcuts" were used to identify some of the groups, most of them would have still been singled out for extra scrutiny had the agency gone about it correctly, reports ABC. The other two more liberal groups on the list that received the extra examination seem largely positive about the experience. "I'm not saying it was fun but it was important," said a spokesperson from Progress Texas. But in a letter to the IRS, Republican lawmakers Darrell Issa and Jim Jordan claim the extra scrutiny put the Tea Party groups and others "in a state of purgatory where they often languished without action for periods as long as two years," Fox News reports. "The actions of the IRS are unconscionable and appalling," they wrote.

In a 2001 report, we estimated that by the end of fiscal year 2006 about 31 percent of the 24 CFO agencies’ employees working in 1998, or 493,000 people, will be eligible to retire, and about half of the eligible employees (236,000 people, the equivalent of 15 percent of the 1998 workforce) would actually retire. We included the SES in our analysis, but did not separately analyze or break out data for the SES. In 2000, we reported on SES retirement eligibility and pointed out that because individuals normally do not enter the SES until well into their careers, SES retirement eligibility is much higher than for the workforce in general. Our analysis showed that 71 percent of the almost 6,000 career SES members employed as of October 1, 1998, would reach regular retirement eligibility by the end of fiscal year 2005. We concluded that the retirement eligibility trends of the SES point to the importance of agencies placing appropriate emphasis and attention on SES succession planning because SES retirements will result in a loss of leadership continuity, institutional knowledge, and expertise among the government’s top career managers. The importance that we place on workforce planning, including planning related to employee retirement, is illustrated by our designation of strategic human capital management as a governmentwide high-risk area that needs urgent attention to ensure that the federal government functions economically, efficiently, and effectively. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 that established the SES states, among other things, that the policy of the federal government is to ensure equal employment opportunity in the workforce. It is generally recognized that a diverse SES corps can be an organizational strength that contributes to achieving results. In fact, we consider diversity so important that we identify it in our model for federal agencies on strategic human capital management as one of the eight critical success factors for strategic management. The demographics of the public served by the federal government are changing, and diversity has evolved from public policy to a business need. SES losses over the next several years present both a challenge for the federal government in filling the vacant positions and an opportunity to affect, through selections to the SES, the diversity of the corps. Because of the wave of retirements and normal attrition for other reasons, the federal government will have the challenge and opportunity to replace over half of its SES corps during fiscal years 2001 through 2007. Our simulation estimates that almost 3,400 of the 6,100 career SES members as of October 2000 will have left the service by October 2007. While a large portion of the GS-15s and GS-14s who represent the primary pool of replacements will also have left by October 2007, substantial numbers of minorities and women will be among the potential SES candidates in that pool. However, if current SES appointment trends continue, the proportion of the SES represented by minorities will remain essentially unchanged. Table 1 presents the results by racial, ethnic, and gender groups of our simulation of SES attrition and projection of SES appointments using current trends. The simulation estimates that 56 percent of the SES members who held positions at the start of fiscal year 2001 will leave service during the ensuing 7 years. The table also shows that the racial/ethnic profile of those SES members who will remain in the service throughout the 7-year period will be about the same as it was for all SES members in October 2000. This is because minorities will be leaving at essentially the same rate overall as white members. Thus, any change in minority representation will be the result of new appointments to the SES. However, as the last columns of table 1 show, if current appointment trends continue, the result of replacing over half of the SES will be a corps whose racial and ethnic profile is virtually the same as it was before. The outlook regarding gender diversity is somewhat different because the percentage represented by white women is estimated to increase by 4 percentage points and the percentage of minority women minimally by 0.5 percentage point. The proportion representing minority men is estimated to be virtually unchanged, only a 0.2 percentage point increase while white men’s proportion will decrease by 5 percentage points. To ascertain what the racial, ethnic, and gender profile of the candidate pool for SES replacements will look like, we performed the same simulations and projections for GS-15s and GS-14s as we did for the SES. Over 80 percent of career SES appointments of federal employees come from the ranks of GS-15s. Similarly, those promoted to GS-15 are GS-14s over 90 percent of the time. Table 2 presents the results for GS-15s and table 3 for GS-14s. The results for both are similar to those for the SES, but a somewhat lower proportion will leave because GS-15s and GS-14s are generally younger and have somewhat different propensities to leave than SES members. Almost half of the GS-15s (24,499, or 47 percent) and about a third of GS- 14s (28,419, or 34 percent) will have left government service by October 2007 according to our simulation. Minority representation among those GS-15s who remain will be about the same as it was in fiscal year 2001, indicating that whites and minorities will leave at about the same rates. However, the proportion of the remaining GS-14s represented by minorities will increase somewhat (by 1.5 percentage points) and the proportion of both grades represented by white and minority women will also increase. Moreover, if current promotion trends to GS-15 and GS-14 continue, marginal gains by almost all of the racial and ethnic groups would result. Our simulation shows that significant numbers of minority GS-15s (4,673) and GS-14s (10,567) will be employed throughout fiscal years 2000 through 2007, and our projection of promotions also shows substantial numbers of minorities at the GS-15 (8,957) and GS-14 (15,672) levels. These numbers indicate that significant numbers of minority candidates for appointment to the SES should be available. With respect to gender, the percentage of white women at GS-15 is projected to increase by 2.6 percentage points and at GS-14 by 1.0 percentage point. The proportions of minority women will increase by 0.9 percentage point for GS-15s and 0.6 percentage point for GS-14s while those for minority men will increase 0.7 percentage point for GS-15s and 0.5 percentage point for GS-14s. White men will represent 4.2 percentage points less of GS-15s and 2.1 percentage points less of GS-14s. The results of our simulation of SES attrition and our projection of appointments to the SES over the October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2007, period show variation across the 24 CFO agencies, as illustrated in table 4. However, as with the governmentwide numbers discussed in the previous section, agencies tend to increase the proportion of women in the SES, particularly white women, and decrease the proportion of white men. The proportion represented by minorities tended to change relatively little. The precision of our estimates of SES attrition at individual agencies by racial, ethnic, and gender groups is likely to be less precise than for our overall SES estimates because of the smaller numbers involved. Nevertheless, the agency-specific numbers should be indicative of what agency profiles will look like on October 1, 2007, if current appointment trends continue. The racial, ethnic, and gender profiles of the career SES at the 24 CFO agencies varied significantly on October 1, 2000. The representation of women ranged from 13.7 percent to 36.1 percent with half of the agencies having 27 percent or fewer women. For minority representation, rates varied even more and ranged from 3.1 percent to 35.6 percent with half of the agencies having less than 15 percent minorities in the SES. Detailed data on each CFO agency in the same format as tables 1, 2, and 3 are included in appendix II. Our simulation results also varied for the proportion of SES members who will leave service by October 1, 2007, but most of the CFO agencies are estimated to lose at least half of their SES corps. The effect on representation of minorities and women in the residual SES also varies but exhibits little change at most agencies for minorities from the October 1, 2000, profile. Only 3 agencies exhibited increases in minority representation of more than 1 percentage point. Increases for women were higher once again with only 1 agency having an increase of less than 3 percentage points. Most of the changes for women were accounted for by white women. Our projection of what the SES would look like if current appointment trends continued through October 1, 2007, also showed variation with 12 agencies having increased minority representation and 10 having less. While projected changes for women are often appreciable, with 16 agencies having gains of 4 percentage points or more and no decreases, projected minority representation changes in the SES at most of the CFO agencies are small, exceeding a 2 percentage point increase at only 6 agencies, with 10 agencies having decreases. The diversity picture for GS-15s and GS-14s is somewhat better than that for the SES at most agencies. The main differences from the SES are that a smaller proportion of the GS-15 and GS-14 population is estimated to leave government service and projected representation of minorities tends to be somewhat greater for those grades compared to the SES. Even after considering estimated attrition, agencies tend to have substantial numbers of minorities and women in the SES replacement pool and projected promotions to GS-15 and GS-14 increase those numbers. As mentioned above, appendix II presents detailed information on GS-15s and GS-14s at the CFO agencies. Again, our estimates for the GS-15 and GS-14 populations at individual agencies are likely to be less precise than our governmentwide figures because of the smaller numbers involved but should be indicative of what agency profiles will look like in October 2007. OPM has recently reaffirmed its commitment to diversity in the career SES, and has provided guidance to federal departments and agencies on maintaining and increasing workforce diversity. The four federal agencies we visited had implemented, or were in the process of implementing, many if not all of the steps recommended by OPM in its guidance. OPM, EEOC, and the four federal agencies we visited all said that our analysis was an accurate reflection of the likely future composition of the career SES if current patterns of selection and attrition continue. They all said that more diversity was needed in the SES and that based on our estimates more efforts would need to be taken if diversity is to increase. In an April 2002 memorandum to federal departments and agencies, the Director of OPM reaffirmed OPM’s commitment to diversity in the SES. About 2 years before, in June 2000, OPM provided comprehensive guidance to federal departments and agencies for building and maintaining a diverse workforce. OPM recommended the following: incorporate diversity program activities and objectives into agency workforce planning and executive succession planning; incorporate diversity into recruitment planning and activities, and use tools and techniques that are more likely to discover and attract a more diverse field of candidates (i.e., visits to majority-minority campuses, partnerships with minority organizations, and advertisement in specialty media); continually monitor the agency workforce profile, and the numbers of women and minorities participating in agency development programs; and build accountability for hiring, retaining, and developing a diverse, high- quality workforce into the performance management system for managers and supervisors. We visited the departments of Energy, the Interior, and Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA), each of which has had efforts in these OPM-recommended areas under way, often for a number of years. According to agency officials, three of the four agencies have diversity goals for their career SES. Officials at all four agencies told us that they have in place, or are putting in place, agencywide human capital planning and executive succession management, which includes diversity as an element in planning. All four agencies have programs for entry-level minority recruiting and for leadership development, which they believe will lead to an increased minority presence in leadership and executive ranks sometime in the future. Officials at all four agencies said that building a diverse workforce was an element in their current performance evaluation for agency executives. All four agencies either have in place or are putting in place human capital information systems that will be able to generate, periodically or on request, reports to management officials on the diversity of the current workforce at any level, and on the ethnic and gender composition of recent agency hires. (See app. III for details on the responses of OPM and the four agencies concerning workforce diversity in general and SES diversity in particular.) Response to GAO’s Analysis OPM officials, after reviewing our analysis of present SES diversity and projections of future SES composition, said that women and minorities continued to be underrepresented in the federal executive corps. They said that it would be unsatisfactory if the racial, ethnic, and gender composition of the career SES in 2007 were as we projected. EEOC expressed concern about the trends suggested by our analyses to the extent that they may point to the presence of arbitrary barriers that limit qualified members of any group from advancing into the SES. Energy, Interior, VA, and SSA said that our analysis of their current and future career SES diversity was reasonable. All of the agencies agreed that improvements needed to be made in their current SES diversity. All of them also said that the composition of the career SES that we projected if present selection trends continued would not be acceptable. Moreover, all four agreed that they would need to undertake additional efforts beyond those currently used if diversity is, in fact, to be enhanced. We asked OPM, EEOC, and the four agencies we visited for comments on a draft of this report. The Director of OPM’s comments are reprinted in appendix IV. Also, the comments of EEOC’s Acting Director of Communications and Legislative Affairs are reprinted in appendix V, those from the Commissioner of SSA in appendix VI, those from the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in appendix VII, and those from the Director, Office of Management, Budget and Evaluation, Department of Energy, are in appendix VIII. The Department of the Interior said that it had no comments on the draft report. OPM said that it concurs with our findings and welcomes the attention this report will bring to a critical opportunity facing the federal workforce and federal hiring officials. The Director said that increasing diversity in the executive ranks continues to be a top priority for OPM and that the agency has been proactive in its efforts to help federal agencies obtain and retain a diverse workforce, particularly in the senior ranks. She also said that talk is not enough, only results matter and that OPM itself in the past year has expanded its efforts to attract senior managers from government and the private sector and changed its SES performance standards to reflect a priority recruitment of qualified minorities. The comments cited several efforts OPM had under way to promote diversity, such as leading the Interagency Task Force on Hispanic Employment and reaching out to the next generation of public servants—college and university undergraduates—as they begin to choose career paths by such actions as hosting a reception in January 2003 for students from Historically Black Colleges and Universities to introduce them to and explain the hiring process for the federal government. EEOC said that the projected large losses in the SES ranks present the government with both a challenge and an opportunity to further strengthen the SES through employment practices that will ensure that the SES corps is staffed with the best and brightest talent available regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or disability. EEOC went on to say that in the years ahead, federal agencies will need to continue their vigilance in ensuring a level playing field for all federal workers and should explore proactive strategies, such as succession planning, SES development, and mentoring programs for midlevel employees, to ensure a diverse group of highly qualified candidates for SES positions. EEOC listed a number of initiatives it said it had begun recently to help agencies identify and remove barriers to free and open competition in the federal workplace. However, most of these initiatives were related to the equal employment opportunity (EEO) compliant process and EEO data reporting and only tangentially to SES diversity. SSA said that it agrees with the reports findings and conclusions, including the value of all the OPM recommended actions we cite in the report. SSA said that it has been implementing such actions since late 1998. SSA also commented that it agrees with all of the information we present about SSA’s efforts to increase SES diversity. Energy said that more needs to be done to enhance SES diversity, particularly in light of the retirement and other losses anticipated over the next 5 years. Energy said that the attrition has important implications for government management and emphasizes the need for good succession planning as well as racial, ethnic, and gender diversity in the SES corps. Energy reiterated the efforts it has under way, discussed earlier in this report and in appendix III, to enhance SES diversity in the future and said that it is committed to enhancing diversity. VA commented that it generally agreed with our observations. VA said that it is undertaking efforts to increase diversity within its SES ranks. EEOC, Energy, and VA also made technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. Unless you announce its contents earlier, we will make no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its date. At that time, we will send copies to the Director of OPM, the Chair of EEOC, the heads of the 24 CFO agencies covered by the report, and other interested committees and members of Congress. 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. If you have questions, please call me on (202) 512-6806 or contact Thomas G. Dowdal, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-6588 or at [email protected]. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX. Our objectives were to (1) identify the effect of estimated employment separations on the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity among the career Senior Executive Service (SES), GS-15s, and GS-14s in the 24 Chief Financial Officer (CFO) agencies and governmentwide, (2) determine the effect of estimated appointments to refill these vacancies on diversity, and (3) obtain from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and four selected agencies their observations on our estimates and on SES diversity during this time of change. To determine the effect of estimated employment separations and appointments to fill these vacancies on racial, ethnic, and gender diversity, we analyzed personnel data from OPM’s Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) to determine past trends and used statistical simulation to estimate future trends. We analyzed separation data for fiscal years 1996 through fiscal year 2000 (the most recent data available at the time we started our analyses) for each of the three grade levels. We included voluntary retirements, other retirements, resignations, death, and terminations for poor performance or conduct in separations. For separations, we calculated each employee’s years of service by finding the difference between the service computation date (we used the 15th of each month as the day) and the date of actual separation. Similarly, we calculated age at separation by finding the difference between the date of birth (we used the 15th of each month as the day) and the date of separation. We calculated the age and years of service for employees at the end of the fiscal year similarly but used September 30 as the end date. For each 2-year interval in the years of service and age of those who separated from service during the period 1996 through 2000, we calculated the probability of leaving by dividing the number of workers that separated by the number of employees in the workforce with a similar combination of years of service and age who were on board at the end of the fiscal year preceding the fiscal year of separations. We put all staff members who were 67 years and older into a single group. We similarly grouped all employees with 32 or more years of service. Using regression, we then modeled the rate of separation as a function of years of service, age, agency type (civilian or defense), race (white or nonwhite), and gender. We developed an equation that estimates the rate of separation for any age, years of service, as well as agency type, race, and gender combination. We applied a statistical simulation technique to each of the 83,153 GS-14, 51,826 GS-15 and 6,110 SES workforce members on board as of September 30, 2000 (the end of fiscal year 2000). Each employee’s age and years of service as well as race, ethnicity, gender, and agency type were used as input into the simulation. Based on the simulation results, an employee was considered to have “separated” if the predicted rate of separation (from zero to 1.0) was greater than a simulation-generated random number from zero to 1. If the predicted value was less than a generated random number then the individual employee was deemed not to have separated. This process was repeated for each employee. The process was then continued for those employees who were not estimated as having separated in fiscal year 2001, but with each employee now being 1 year older and having 1 more year of service. As before, the employee’s new age and new years of service were used as input into the model and a predicted rate of separation was contrasted with a new generated random number to determine whether the employee was considered as separated in fiscal year 2002. A separation decision was made for each of the remaining employees, and each employee was either counted as having separated in fiscal year 2002 or 1 year was again added to both age and years of service. This process was repeated seven times for each year from fiscal years 2001 through 2007. The total number of separations by grade level, agency type, race, ethnicity, and gender was calculated across all 7 years. To determine how many employees remained after the separations, we subtracted the number separated for each combination of grade level, race, ethnicity, and gender from the total number of staff in the agency at that grade level. To determine what percentage of this remaining workforce was in each of the race, ethnicity, and gender groups, we divided the number remaining for each race, ethnicity, and gender by the total number of staff remaining at each agency. To estimate the race and gender profile of expected appointments in fiscal years 2001 through 2007, we analyzed by agency career appointment trends for the SES, GS-15, and GS-14 grade levels by race and gender for fiscal years 1995 through 2000. We included conversions, appointments (new hires), and promotions into each grade level. We combined the data for each fiscal year into a single 6-year total for each grade level. We determined what percentage each equal employment opportunity (EEO) group (race and ethnicity by gender; for example, African-American females) constituted of these past accessions for each level. We assumed that the number of separations estimated for fiscal years 2001 through 2007 would all be refilled through accessions. Therefore, the number of estimated accessions equaled the number of estimated separations. To estimate how many accessions would occur for each EEO group during fiscal years 2001 through fiscal year 2007, we multiplied an agency’s predicted total separations times an EEO group’s percentage of an agency’s past accessions. For example, if the Department of Commerce was expected to have 100 separations for a particular grade level and African- American males were 6 percent of Commerce’s past accessions at that grade level, then we estimated that Commerce’s accessions to fill these 100 vacancies would include six African-American males (100 separations times 0.06). These calculations were done for the period from fiscal years 2001 through 2007 as a whole, not year by year. To assess the effect that accessions to refill the positions vacated by separations had on the EEO profile, we added these expected career accessions to the career staff members we expected to remain after separations in each agency at each grade level at the end of fiscal year 2007. We then calculated the percentage for each racial and ethnic group by gender in each grade level within each agency. These calculations were done for each of the 100 iterations of separation predictions for each race, ethnicity, gender, agency, and grade level. Because these replacement calculations were done for each of the 100 iterations, we determined confidence intervals around all estimates reported. In general, confidence intervals for EEO groups for specific agencies are likely to be less precise than the governmentwide ones. We used regression analysis to develop a statistical model using five variables: (1) age at the end of each year for fiscal years 2001 through 2007, (2) years of service at the end of each year for fiscal years 2001 through 2007, (3) race and ethnicity, (4) gender, and (5) whether employed by a Defense agency or a non-Defense agency that most closely fits actual rates of separation over fiscal years 1996 through 2000. The objective in developing the statistical model was to minimize the squared differences between the actual rates of separation and the predicted rates of separation. An index, which is known as the squared correlation coefficient and is bounded between zero and one, is one useful numerical quantity to assess the strength or predictive power of the mathematical model. A perfect fit in a model would yield a squared correlation coefficient of 1.00. In our mathematical model, we achieved squared correlation coefficients of 0.73 for the SES and 0.75 for both the GS-14s and GS-15s. Thus, we were able to capture and predict three-fourths of the variability in the rates of separation for the 5 years of separation data. Therefore, one limitation is that our model does not predict with 100 percent accuracy the actual rates of separation, although it is uncommon in real world applications to find such a high squared correlation as our model achieved when dealing with behavioral data such as separating from federal government employment. The accuracy of our projections are also limited by the assumptions we made. Because the model is based on past trends, the estimates of future separations and appointments assume that factors affecting past trends will continue into the future. If one or more assumptions are incorrect, then the projections would change. The model does not account for possible changes in the future such as substantial pay increases, major changes in personnel policies, substantial changes in the number of employees, or large government reorganizations, such as creation of the Department of Homeland Security. For example, our past work has shown that a major increase in SES pay reduces the rate of retirements (and thus separations) in the first 3 years after the pay hike, followed by an increase in subsequent years. Many nonwork factors can influence an employee’s decision to separate from the government. Factors such as an individual’s health or children’s age/college status may affect the decision of when to separate. Data for these other factors were not available to be included in the statistical model. Other nonwork factors, such as future stock market performance, were not included. Because we did not include transfers from one agency to another as separations, the estimated separations for individual agencies are probably not as precise as separations governmentwide. Similarly, because we did not include promotions from GS-14 to GS-15 or appointments to the SES from GS-14 or GS-15, separations for GS-14s and GS-15s are probably underestimated. We asked OPM and EEOC to comment on our estimates and their implications for diversity in the SES. We also asked OPM and EEOC to provide information on any efforts they had planned or under way to address diversity, considering the magnitude of estimated SES losses. In addition, we visited four federal agencies—two with relatively high proportions of women and/or racial and ethnic minorities in the SES and two with relatively low proportions—and sought the same information from them as we had from OPM. Our work was performed from October 2001 through September 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We presented to each of the four agencies we examined—the departments of Energy, the Interior, and Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Social Security Administration (SSA)—the results of our simulation of Senior Executive Service (SES) losses and projections of the SES racial, ethnic, and gender profiles at each agency if current appointment trends continue. We also presented our governmentwide simulation results and projections to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). SSA and the three departments said our analysis of their career SES, and GS-15 and GS-14, losses and future diversity was reasonable. All of the agencies agreed that improvements needed to be made in their current SES diversity in at least some minority and gender groups. All four also acknowledged that the composition of the career SES that we projected if present selection trends continued would not be acceptable and discussed efforts they had made and were planning to take to promote diversity in general and in the career SES in particular. These efforts have significant elements in common. Because almost all career SES selections come from within the agency with a relative few selected from other agencies, agency officials generally agreed that the most effective way to enhance SES diversity is to increase diversity of the GS-15 and GS-14 feeder pool. OPM officials also said that if our projections were the actual result of SES selections through fiscal year 2007, that result would be unacceptable from a diversity standpoint. The reactions of these six agencies to the data and what they are doing and plan to do to address diversity in the career SES are summarized below. SSA’s goal is that its workforce at all levels, including the SES, should be at least as diverse as the national civilian labor force. To achieve this end, SSA officials said that the agency would need to improve its representation of Asian Americans and Native Americans; our analysis indicates that an increase of Hispanic representation would also be needed. SSA recently reinstituted an SES candidate development program, and also has separate leadership development programs for GS-13 and GS-14 and for GS-9 through GS-12. Thus, most employees above entry level can apply for management and leadership development programs. SSA officials said that it was agency policy to include women and minorities in the screening of applicants and final selections for these programs. SSA has made an effort to have line management “buy in” to diversity by making a case that diversity is not only a good thing in itself but enhances the agency’s ability to perform its mission. Executives in SSA are held accountable for diversity as an element in their performance contracts. SSA’s Office of Human Resources provides the Commissioner with a monthly summary of the ethnic and gender composition of each component of the agency by grade level, and a similar summary of the hiring done during the previous month. The Commissioner reviews these summaries with the deputy commissioners each month, which enables the Commissioner to demonstrate to senior managers the agency’s commitment to diversity and hold them accountable with their peers for the diversity in their units. SSA does regular entry-level recruiting at historically black colleges and Hispanic institutions and also has co-op agreements with Native American tribal colleges. SSA uses the Outstanding Scholar Program to recruit minorities and women, and makes use of authority granted by OPM to use bilingual registers for hiring. SSA has internal advisory councils for women, minority groups, and persons with disabilities. These councils, which are chartered by the SSA Commissioner and composed of volunteers, exist at national headquarters and at the SSA regional offices. They provide input and advice to SSA national and regional management on diversity issues and also join in SSA recruiting efforts where appropriate. Interior uses the relevant civilian labor force as a basis for looking at diversity at all levels but had not yet prepared a comparison labor force for its career SES. Interior planned to do so in the near future. A department official acknowledged that the current diversity of the career SES in Interior is unsatisfactory, and that future diversity cannot be enhanced without additional efforts. The official noted that diversity at the entry level and midlevel has improved and that, with the assistance of the candidate development program that it has had for some time, this improvement will eventually be reflected at the SES level. Interior officials noted that recruitment, workforce information, and workforce planning has until very recently been left up to the components within Interior instead of being handled at the departmental level. Officials of the U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Surface Mining, and Bureau of Land Management told us that they have had ongoing efforts to recruit minorities at educational institutions and career fairs. The Geological Survey has developed a job applicant database, which allows for tracking of the job selection process through all of its stages; thus, diversity of the applicant pool through successive screenings can be noted. Other parts of Interior do not have this type of process, although at least one other component uses the Geological Survey’s process. Interior management has recently acted to shift responsibility for recruitment and workforce planning (and thus for diversity) from components to the departmental level. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources is developing a national recruitment initiative, under which Interior components will collaborate in recruiting and diversity will be included as one factor in recruiting. The Deputy Assistant Secretary is also preparing a human capital plan for submission to OPM, which will associate workforce planning with the departmental mission and will target diversity at midlevel and senior level. A senior official at Energy said that more progress is needed in making and keeping the department’s career SES diverse. The official noted that there has been a recent significant increase in diversity at the GS-14 and 15 levels, which could be reflected in future SES selections. Energy uses the civilian labor force as a basis for judging diversity, and also compares itself with other federal agencies. Energy hosted a Human Capital Summit in 2001, which resulted in a renewed commitment to executive succession planning. After this summit, Energy restarted an SES candidate development program, which had been inactive since 1994, with its Human Resource Management office coordinating with its Office of Civil Rights to develop a diversity recruitment strategy for the program. Energy had an intern program to bring in recruits for technical positions at the GS-7/9 level and, according to a senior official, 50 to 55 percent of the interns in that program have been minorities, and most have stayed long enough to reach the GS-12/13 level. A new career intern program recently began and it is too early to report its results. Pursuant to Executive Order 13171, dealing with Hispanic federal employment, Energy has set up an internship program aimed specifically at Hispanics. Energy is also establishing a formal mentoring program, under which GS-13 through GS-15 staff members can benefit from guidance from SES executives. Senior Energy officials noted that Energy does regular periodic diversity analysis of the workforce, and may extend this analysis to job applicants in the future. Building diversity is one of the key leadership attributes of the annual performance review for Energy executives. Energy officials noted that it is especially difficult to recruit qualified minorities for scientific and technical positions, especially considering the competition for such candidates from the private sector and other agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Energy uses authorities such as recruitment and retention bonuses and relocation allowances to help in minority recruitment. Energy could also use dual compensation waivers for this purpose, but does not often use this option at present because, in the opinion of a senior Energy official, it is complicated to implement. A senior official said that Energy is considering applying for general waivers for certain occupational categories. In addition, Energy said that it uses executive search firms to increase the cadre of minority candidates. VA also said that our analysis was reasonable, and that more diversity was needed and greater efforts would be required if diversity is to increase. However, VA does not have an agreed-upon standard, such as the civilian labor force used by some agencies, by which to evaluate diversity in the career SES. Senior VA officials told us that, like Interior, VA has until recently left issues such as recruitment and leadership development to agency components. Officials of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) said that they were concerned about diversity in their management ranks, and had stepped up efforts to recruit minorities at lower levels and to prepare them for leadership. An official of the National Cemetery Administration said that it had made similar efforts, but had run into difficulties with finding minority candidates with civil service status and getting them on final selection lists. VA said that it had recently submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a restructuring plan under which, among other things, it will conduct an evaluation of its leadership development programs and develop a national recruitment and marketing plan. According to agency officials, both VHA and VBA have instituted leadership development programs, with VBA having had an SES candidate development program for some time. VA announced an SES candidate development program in October 2001, and training for the initial group of participants began in November 2002. VA also recently began to develop a plan for workforce management and succession planning. In addition, VA’s Office of Diversity Management and Equal Employment Opportunity, at the request of the VA Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Management, is providing diversity information on VA’s current composition and monthly hiring. While diversity has been an element in performance evaluation for VA executives, this information will for the first time allow VA to fairly evaluate executives for diversity performance, according to a VA official. To gain a broader prospective on SES diversity issues, we met with OPM officials to get their reaction to our work. The officials agreed that our methodology was reasonable. They said that women and minorities continued to be underrepresented in the federal executive corps. OPM’s strategy for increasing executive diversity is to encourage agencies to enhance diversity at entry level and midlevel, identify individuals with leadership ability early in their careers, and provide experience and learning opportunities to prepare them for senior level positions. OPM cited the following actions as among the major steps it has taken to address diversity in the SES. Creating an Interagency Task Force on Hispanic Employment to focus on the continued underrepresentation of Hispanics in the federal workforce. The Director of OPM chairs the task force. Fostering the establishment and growth of agency candidate development programs, which train selected GS-14 and GS-15 employees in the skills necessary for success in the career SES. Issuing the first annual Report to the President on Hispanic Employment in the Federal Government, concerning the state of Hispanic employment. Meeting with leaders from 21 different Hispanic organizations to discuss barriers to Hispanic recruitment and retention as well as to enlist their support in recruitment. The organizations have goals and missions related to five different sectors: Hispanic education, federal employment, national advocacy, private sector, and professional organizations. The Director has held two meetings with the organizations and issued guidance to federal agencies about the benefits of utilizing the organizations' expertise. Co-chairing the Asian American and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) Joint Task Force with EEOC. The task force issued its Report on AAPI Federal Employment and Glass Ceiling Issues. Hosting, in partnership with the Department of Labor, the first Asian Pacific American Federal Career Advancement Summit in May 2002. OPM conducted several workshops on diversity issues and preparing for the SES. Meeting with the founders of the new employee group—the African American Federal Executive Association—which formed in 2002. One result from this meeting was an OPM initiative called the Executive Diversity Roundtable. The roundtable will be a venue for discussions focused solely on increasing and leveraging diversity in the executive ranks. Replacing “Cultural Awareness” with “Leveraging Diversity” as an SES leadership competency. A panel of public and private sector experts worked with OPM to revise the title and definition for the SES leadership competency that deals with diversity. The revised competency embodies the values of building, managing, and maintaining a diverse workforce; is results oriented; and stresses accountability. Compiling best practices that agencies can use to develop strategies to improve the representation of minorities and women in the federal workforce and including them in the fiscal year 2001 annual Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program (FEORP) Report to Congress. Issuing the first Semi-Annual Statistical Report to the President on Hispanic Employment in Federal Agencies. The report compared Hispanic hiring in fiscal year 1995 with that of fiscal year 2001. It contained information on hiring activity both governmentwide and by individual agency and provided information about federal agency utilization of available hiring tools. Issuing a guide to federal agencies, Building and Maintaining a High Quality, Diverse Workforce. Conducting sessions on diversity issues as part of 1-week seminars offered to federal managers by OPM's Management Development Centers. During fiscal year 2001, conducting two workshops for agencies about federal equal employment opportunity regulations and federal agency roles and reporting requirements. Launching a new disability Web site in June 2002, a one-stop source of information for managers, applicants, and human resources professionals that is designed to be both comprehensive and user- friendly. Issuing a model plan on the employment of adults with disabilities. Regularly presenting workshops on diversity issues at numerous nationwide conferences of organizations with compatible goals, including organizations representing the interests of African Americans, Hispanics, women, Asians and Pacific Islanders, and persons with disabilities. Regularly providing consultation services and technical assistance to individual agencies regarding their questions, plans, and activities on diversity issues. In addition, upon request, OPM provided workshops to organizations that expressed interest in developing future leaders. These workshops focused on the application process and understanding the leadership competencies necessary for SES membership. These services were provided to about 10 federal agencies during fiscal year 2001. For EEOC’s reaction, see the “Agency Comments” section of the letter and appendix V, where its comments are reprinted. In addition to the individual named above, the following individuals made significant contributions to this report: Walter E. Reed, Jr., Steven J. Berke, Mitchell B. Karpman and Gregory H. Wilmoth. 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 GAO Mailing Lists” under “Order GAO Products” heading.

The federal government faces large losses in its Senior Executive Service (SES), primarily through retirement but also because of other normal attrition. This presents the governmental with substantial challenges to assuring an able management cadre and also provides opportunities to affect the composition of the SES. GAO estimated the number of SES members who would actually leave service through fiscal year 2007 and reviewed the implications for diversity, as defined by race, ethnicity, and gender, of the estimated losses. Specifically, GAO estimated by race, ethnicity, and gender the number of members of the career SES who will leave government service from October 1, 2000, through September 30, 2007, and what the profile of the SES will be if appointment trends do not change. GAO made the same estimates for the pool of GS-15s and GS-14s, from whose ranks the vast majority of replacements for departing SES members come, to ascertain the likely composition of that pool. More than half of the 6,100 career SES members employed on October 1, 2000, will have left service by October 1, 2007. Using current SES appointment trends, the only significant changes in diversity will be an increase in the number of white women and an essentially equal decrease in white men. About 46 percent of GS-15s and 34 percent of GS-14 workforce will provide agencies the opportunity to select minority members for the SES. Estimates for 24 large agencies showed substantial variation in SES losses in the proportion leaving and the effect on agencies' racial, ethnic, and gender profiles, with 10 agencies with decreases in minority representation and 12 with increases. The 6 agencies GAO visited recognize that the SES needs to be more diverse than GAO's projections estimate and have efforts under way to address SES diversity. They also recognize that more will have to be done than in the past if diversity is to be enhanced.

Public displays of religious symbols, including Ten Commandments monuments, are subject to review under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Establishment Clause provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." When a religious symbol is displayed on government property, it might be construed as a governmental act establishing a religion reflected by that symbol. The primary test courts use to evaluate claims under the Establishment Clause is known as the Lemon test. Under this test, public displays (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. Each of these requirements is necessary for a public display of a religious symbol to be upheld as constitutional. Under this test, if a display fails one of the elements but meets the other two, it will nonetheless be struck down as unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court traditionally has evaluated the constitutionality of public display of the religious symbols by applying the Lemon test, but the applicability has been questioned in some of the cases. The Court has been split in the most recent cases involving public displays of the Ten Commandments, using different standards for the review of the displays under the Establishment Clause. This report analyzes the Court's holdings in the Ten Commandments cases and the distinctions the Court made in reaching divergent decisions. It also briefly addresses other relevant cases in which the Court evaluated constitutional issues related to religious displays on public property, including holiday displays. Finally, the report discusses related Court decisions regarding public displays, including Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum and Salazar v. Buono . In 1980, the Supreme Court first addressed the constitutionality of public displays of the Ten Commandments. In 2005, the Supreme Court issued two decisions involving public displays of the Ten Commandments. Rather than issuing a brightline rule regarding the constitutionality of the displays, the Court considered each of the displays in 2005 separately and reached different conclusions under their Establishment Clause analysis in each case. In Stone v. Graham , the Court struck down a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a privately funded copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public school classroom in the state. The Court determined that the statute had no secular purpose, failing the Lemon test's first prong, and therefore was unconstitutional. Kentucky argued that the statute served a secular legislative purpose because the Commandments displays included the following notation: "The secular application of the Ten Commandments is clearly seen in its adoption as the fundamental legal code of Western Civilization and the Common Law of the United States." The Court, however, found that the "pre-eminent purpose for posting the Ten Commandments on schoolroom walls was plainly religious" and the display served no educational function. The Court held that an "'avowed' secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment." In Stone , the source of the funding did not affect the constitutionality of the statute. Although the displays were funded by voluntary private contributions, the Court held that "the mere posting of the copies under the auspices of the legislature provides the 'official support of the State ... Government' that the Establishment Clause prohibits." In 1999, two counties in Kentucky posted large displays of the Ten Commandments, including a citation to the Book of Exodus, in their courthouses. The displays were placed in public areas, "readily visible" to those who used the courthouse. Soon after the displays were posted, the ACLU of Kentucky sued the counties in federal district court for an injunction against maintaining the displays, alleging a violation of the Establishment Clause. While the court considered the requested injunction, the counties expanded the display to show that the Commandments were Kentucky's "precedent legal code," and included eight other documents, each having its own religious reference. The counties stated several grounds for their position, including a declaration that the "Founding Fathers had an explicit understanding of the duty of elected officials to publicly acknowledge God as the source of America's strength and direction." Although the district court ordered that the Commandments be removed immediately and that no county official "erect or cause to be erected similar displays," the counties erected a third display. This final display in each courthouse included nine documents of similar size to each other, and was titled "The Foundations of American Law and Government Display." When the case came before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court emphasized the importance of neutrality in considering issues under the Establishment Clause, noting that "the First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." The Court explained that the Establishment Clause's core value of neutrality is violated by government actions that have "the ostensible and predominant purpose of advancing religion." The facts of McCreary raised questions of the relevance of the purpose prong of the Lemon test. The Court recognized that the purpose of a government action, though rarely dispositive, serves an important function. According to the Court, favoring one religion, or favoring religion generally, contradicts the understanding "that liberty and social stability demand a religious tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens." The Court also recognized that purpose is a valid consideration when determining the constitutionality of a statute, citing numerous instances apart from Establishment Clause cases in which the Court looked to the purpose of an action when evaluating its constitutionality. The Court further explained that while a governmental entity's stated purpose is generally given deference, the Lemon test requires that "the secular purpose be genuine, not a sham, and not merely secondary to a religious objective." The specific actions that the counties had taken in this case led the Court to conclude that the counties acted with an unconstitutional purpose. According to the Court, the first display "lacked even Stone 's implausible disclaimer that the Commandments were set out to show their effect on the civil law." Furthermore, the Court noted, the county executive's pastor "testified to the certainty of the existence of God" at the ceremony for posting the Commandments, which could reasonably lead observers to think that the counties were emphasizing the religious value of the display. Regarding the second display, the Court looked to the resolutions adopted to modify the displays, which expressed support for other public displays of the Commandments and cited a specific Christian reference used by the state legislature. The Court determined that the counties sought to highlight primarily religious texts and that their actions constituted "an indisputable, and undisputed, showing of an impermissible purpose." Although the counties attempted to demonstrate a valid secular purpose by creating a third display allegedly intended to educate the public on significant documents in American legal history, the Court found that there was no clear theme that overcame the apparent religious objectives the counties held in developing the displays. As a result, according to the Court, a reasonable observer "would probably suspect that the counties were simply reaching for a way to keep a religious document on the walls of courthouses constitutionally required to embody religious neutrality." In 1961, a monolith of the Ten Commandments was erected by the Fraternal Order of the Eagles on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. The display was included among 17 monuments and 21 historical markers displayed in the 22 acres surrounding the Texas State Capitol, "commemorating the 'people, ideals, and events that compose Texan identity." The Eagles paid the cost of erecting the monument, the location of which was determined by the state based on the recommendation of the state organization responsible for maintaining the Capitol grounds. In 2001, Thomas Van Orden, a frequent visitor to the Capitol grounds since 1995, sued state officials, claiming that the display violated the Establishment Clause. In deciding Van Orden , the Court did not use the test set forth in Lemon , but rather analyzed the placement of the monument based on the nature of the monument itself and the history of the nation. The Court cited numerous examples in which all three branches of government officially acknowledged the role of religion in American life, and specifically noted that the Court had recognized the role of God in American heritage in previous decisions. For instance, in Marsh v. Chambers , the Court held that the Establishment Clause permits a state legislature to open its daily session with a prayer by a chaplain paid by the state. The Court also noted cases in which the Court upheld laws originating from one of the Ten Commandments, for example, McGowan v. Maryland , which upheld a law prohibiting the sale of merchandise on Sunday. With respect to the specific display of the Ten Commandments, the Court found that "acknowledgments of the role played by the Ten Commandments in our Nation's heritage are common throughout America," and cited numerous government buildings where the Commandments can be found. Despite the focus on the historical significance of the Commandments, the Court acknowledged that they were at their inception and remain inherently religious. However, the Court noted that "[s]imply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause." Although the Court's holding might appear to conflict with Stone , the Court distinguished Van Orden from Stone based on the difference between religious displays in a classroom context and the "more passive" display of the Commandments at issue on the grounds of the Texas State Capitol. The Court stated that while it had been "particularly vigilant" in Establishment Clause cases set in schools, there was never any indication that Stone 's holding would extend to a legislative chamber or to capitol grounds. Because the Texas monument lacked the particular concerns raised by displays in school settings and because Van Orden had walked past the monument for a number of years before bringing the lawsuit, the Court determined that the Van Orden display was different from the texts that confronted elementary school students every day in Stone . The Court held that the monument in question had a "dual significance, partaking of both religion and government," and therefore its inclusion among the monuments on the capitol grounds did not violate the Establishment Clause. The 2005 cases decided by the Court concerning the public display of the Ten Commandments reached divergent conclusions regarding the displays and used different tests to reach those conclusions. While the Court did not use these cases to create a bright-line test for determining whether such displays violate the Establishment Clause, the decisions can be reconciled by studying the specific facts presented in each case. The displays at issue in McCreary were created and erected by county officials and placed in prominent locations at the counties' main government buildings. The counties' actions in promoting and justifying the display were viewed by the Court as having religious motivations and implicating government endorsement of a religious message. On the other hand, the display at issue in Van Orden was characterized by the Court several times in its decision as "passive" and placed in a location where a reasonable observer likely would not infer government endorsement, as it was placed among dozens of other monuments and markers. The fact that the Texas state legislature played no role in creating or erecting the monument in the Van Orden case also alleviated the appearance of governmental endorsement of a religious message. What remains unclear from these decisions is the status of the Lemon test in the Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The majority opinion in McCreary relied on the test, but applied a modified version of the test that evaluates whether the purpose and effects prongs of the original Lemon test amount to an endorsement of religion. The Court reached its decision in Van Orden without a consensus in its reasoning, but the plurality opinion did not use the Lemon test, noting other decisions where the Court used the factors set forth in Lemon as "helpful signposts" without relying on the three-part test for its analysis. The divergent decisions were reached as a result of a split Court, and raise the question of what approach the Court will take in future cases of such displays. Although these cases did not use a consistent standard for analysis, McCreary and Van Orden might not be as divergent from Establishment Clause jurisprudence as one might expect. Justice Breyer, who provided the deciding vote in both cases, explained his understanding that the Establishment Clause requires the government to "avoid excessive interference with, or promotion of, religion," but "does not compel the government to purge from the public sphere all that in any way partakes of the religious." This rationale echoed the Court's previous holdings in challenges to public displays of religious symbols. Generally, the Court has upheld public displays of religious symbols where the display is set in diversified context. McCreary and Van Orden appear to fit this analysis, as the display upheld in Van Orden was set in a historical secular context, while the display struck down in McCreary indicated a predominantly religious message. Displays of the Ten Commandments have been the most frequent type of display to be challenged. However, public displays of other religious symbols have also been challenged under the Establishment Clause. In the 1980s, the Court decided two cases involving religious symbols on public property that were included in Christmas holiday displays. Like the McCreary and Van Orden decisions, the Court decided the constitutionality of the inclusion of a creche in two separate holiday displays with varying results. The Court's decisions relied on the setting of each display, particularly whether the display emphasized the religious nature of the symbol or the secular purpose of its inclusion. In Lynch v. Donnelly , the Court held that the inclusion of a creche in a city's Christmas display did not violate the Establishment Clause. Applying the Lemon test, the Court reasoned that the creche had a legitimate secular purpose in recognizing "the historical origins of this traditional event long recognized as a National Holiday." The display did not advance religion, according to the Court, because the benefit to religion was "indirect, remote, and incidental." The Court also found that there was no entanglement, and therefore, the creche was a constitutional display under the Establishment Clause. In Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU , the Court held that the display of a creche at a county courthouse violated the Establishment Clause. Unlike Lynch , the creche was the sole element of the display inside the courthouse and included a sign that indicated that it was donated by a religious group and displayed a related religious message. Because the display did not include anything to "detract from the creche's religious message" and the overall effect of the display was the endorsement of the religious message, the Court held that the display was unconstitutional. The case also addressed the inclusion of a menorah in a separate display outside a government building. The menorah was not held to be a violation of the Establishment Clause because it was placed with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty. The inclusion of the religious symbol with other symbols, according to several Justices, indicated the celebration of a holiday season that had "attained a secular status" and illustrated a "message of pluralism." In February 2009, the Court issued a decision in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum , which addressed First Amendment issues regarding monuments displayed in a public park. Summum, a religious group, challenged the city's refusal to include a monument of the Seven Aphorisms for display in a public park that currently includes various monuments, including the Ten Commandments. The case was brought before the Court on free speech grounds, rather than under the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Summum claimed that the city violated the Free Speech Clause because it had accepted a Ten Commandments display, but refused to display Summum's Seven Aphorisms display. The case did not challenge the constitutional validity of the Ten Commandments display under the Establishment Clause. The Court held that privately donated monuments displayed in the city's public park were a form of government speech, not the speech of the respective private donors. As government speech, the monuments are not subject to limitations imposed by the Free Speech Clause, but are subject to other restraints imposed by law, such as the Establishment Clause. Because the Court has held the park's monuments to be government speech, rather than the private speech of the individuals or entities that donated them, the constitutionality of the display of the Ten Commandments may be challenged under the Establishment Clause. Thus, a future case may challenge Pleasant Grove's Ten Commandments display as an improper government action establishing religion. In recent years, the public debate over the display of religious symbols on public grounds has involved Latin crosses that have been designated as war memorials. One of the prominent controversies has involved a cross placed in the Mojave National Preserve that became the subject of lengthy litigation, ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. In Salazar v. Buono , the Court considered a case involving the display of a cross that stands less than eight feet tall on the Mojave National Preserve in California, which is managed by the National Park Service (NPS). The cross display had been erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) as a memorial to fallen service members in 1934. NPS denied a request to erect a Buddhist shrine near the cross in 1999, leading to controversial debate over whether the cross is constitutional under the Establishment Clause. After NPS indicated that the cross would be removed to avoid constitutional problems, Congress passed legislation that prohibited the use of federal funds to remove the cross and passed additional legislation that designated the cross and adjoining land as a national memorial to World War I veterans. In 2001, a former employee of the preserve filed a lawsuit alleging that the cross display violated the Establishment Clause, particularly because the cross was displayed on public property on which displays of other religious symbols were not also permitted. The district court held the display on public land to be a violation of the Establishment Clause and issued an injunction that prohibited the government from permitting the display. Congress subsequently enacted legislation directing the conveyance of approximately one acre of land on which the cross was displayed to the VFW. In a second lawsuit challenging that land transfer, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9 th Circuit held that the transfer of land did not cure the Establishment Clause violation and that the transfer could not "be validly executed without running afoul of the injunction." The court reasoned that "carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve ... will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement." The Supreme Court did not resolve the case on constitutional grounds, but instead remanded the case for reconsideration by the district court. The Court's decision was fractured, with no majority of Justices agreeing on a rationale for the decision. In the plurality opinion announcing the Court's decision, Justice Kennedy explained that the case was "ill-suited for announcing categorical rules [and due to] the highly fact-specific nature of the inquiry, it is best left to the District Court to undertake the analysis in the first instance." However, the plurality indicated that a proper analysis of the case should consider the purpose of the injunction and show deferential respect to Congress as a coordinate branch of government if there is no "clear showing of unconstitutionality." Thus, although the decision provides some guidance to how the Court would analyze such a case, it provides little precedent for projecting future effects of challenges to religious symbols on public property. A similar case, currently being litigated in the lower courts, involves a challenge to a 43-foot cross atop Mt. Soledad in California. The current cross was placed on then-city owned property in 1954, although other versions of the cross have been located in the same place since 1913. The federal government seized the land upon which the cross stands by eminent domain in 2006 "in order to preserve a historically significant war memorial." In January 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the federal government's actions with regard to the Mt. Soledad cross may have had a secular purpose (that is, preserving a memorial for veterans of the nation's armed forces), but the effect of displaying the large Latin cross on public land indicated a religious message of endorsement of one religion and the exclusion of others. The court evaluated the case under both the Lemon test (used in McCreary ) and the principles provided by Van Orden , finding the cross unconstitutional in each examination. Specifically, the court explained that the cross symbolized Christianity exclusively, was rarely originally designated as a war memorial generally, and had a long religious history but scarce secular history. The court repeatedly emphasized the significance of the setting of the cross within the memorial, noting that the cross was the central and dominant feature of the Mt. Soledad memorial and was the only element visible from many perspectives. The court noted the guidance of the Supreme Court's Buono decision—that the context of the memorial was a critical element of analysis—and used the relative size and dominance of the cross as it currently stands as justification for finding a violation of the Establishment Clause.

Over the past few decades, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued several decisions regarding public displays of religious symbols. Although a few of these cases have involved temporary religious holiday displays, the more recent cases have involved permanent monuments of religious symbols, specifically the Ten Commandments. In 1980, the Supreme Court held in Stone v. Graham that a Kentucky statute requiring the posting of a copy of the Ten Commandments on the wall of each public school classroom in the state had no secular legislative purpose and was therefore unconstitutional. The Court did not address the constitutionality of public displays of the Ten Commandments again until 2005. In McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry, the Court reached differing conclusions regarding displays of the Ten Commandments in different contexts. This report analyzes the Court's holdings in Stone, McCreary, and Van Orden, and the distinctions the Court made in reaching the divergent decisions. It also briefly addresses other relevant cases in which the Court evaluated constitutional issues related to religious displays on public property, including holiday displays. Finally, the report discusses related Court decisions regarding other types of public displays, including Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum and Salazar v. Buono.

Today's European Union had its beginnings in 1957 with the creation of the European Economic Community (EEC). The economic core of the EEC called for the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people among its original members—France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. During its first two decades, considerable progress was made in eliminating tariffs and quotas on trade in goods among its members. Much less progress was made in freeing up the movement of services, capital, and people. For example, service sectors such as telecommunications, rail transport, banking, and medicine remained largely divided along national lines. Trips from one country to another required frequent passport checks, changes of money, and customs inspections, slowing commerce and travel considerably. Member states also maintained controls on capital flows as tools of national economic policy. In support of the creation of a single European market where goods, services, capital and people could cross borders freely, member states enacted in 1987 the Single European Act (SEA), which made completion by 1992 of an open and free European market a top priority. To facilitate achieving this objective, the member states agreed to pass single market legislation by a qualified majority rather than by a unanimous vote. While substantial progress was achieved by 1992, the process is still on-going. For the EU to overcome remaining barriers, it is necessary for the European Commission in Brussels to propose EU-level directives (or laws). These directives, in turn, have to be adopted by the Council of Ministers and implemented in a non-discriminatory fashion by each member state. Through this cumbersome and complicated legislative process, directives governing the free movement of capital, labor, and services have taken more than a decade to be crafted and implemented. In terms of capital market liberalization, the directives affecting mergers and takeovers were substantially watered down, resulting in limited market liberalization. Since the summer of 2005, a number of EU member states have erected barriers to prevent cross-border mergers and acquisitions that undermine the effort to deepen the single market. These include new anti-takeover laws, politically engineered corporate mergers of domestic firms, and populist appeals to national security or economic patriotism. Some in the media and representatives of the European Commission in Brussels have claimed that these actions are evidence of resurgent economic nationalism in Europe. The most prominent and recent of these actions occurred in: France: the government orchestrated a quick merger of two utilities, publicly traded Suez SA, a French utility, and state-controlled Gaz de France (GDF), to fend off a potential takeover by Enel of Italy; passed a new decree giving the government the right to veto or impose conditions on foreign takeovers in 11 "sensitive" sectors; and expressed concerns about the prospect that PepsiCo was interested in buying the French yogurt giant, Groupe Danone. In June 2006 French President Jacques Chirac stated that as a "matter of principle" he was against the proposed merger of the New York and Euronext stock exchanges. Italy: Italian politicians from both major political coalitions advocated blocking French bids for Italian companies in retaliation for France's treatment of Enel; and Italy's Central Bank blocked the acquisition of various Italian banks by European rivals; Spain: The Spanish government is attempting to prevent a hostile takeover of its gas utility Endesa SA by the German electricity and gas utility E. On A, and has stated that Madrid will do everything in its power to ensure that Spain's energy companies remain Spanish; Poland: In order to protect the dominant position of a state-owned bank, Poland attempted to block the merger of two Polish subsidiaries of the Italian bank UniCredit and the German bank HVB; Luxembourg: Together with France, Luxembourg endeavored to block Mittal, an Indian steel maker, from a takeover of the European conglomerate Arcelor—a company formed in 2002 from three European firms based in Luxembourg, Spain, and France; and Germany: The government has clashed with the European Commission over 'Volkswagen Law,' which protects Volkswagen from hostile bids. Actions that discourage foreign companies from bidding for firms which are regarded as strategic or national champions present the EU with a significant challenge in its efforts to enforce the principle of the free movement of capital. Several EU officials have weighed into the public debate to warn about the dangers of resurgent economic nationalism in certain member states. EU Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes threatened to break up the EU energy giants in order to open the market for greater competition, while Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy said he refused to turn a blind eye to recent moves to defend national champions from foreign takeovers. While neither questioned the principle of the mergers, both warned that protectionism in principle and in practice was contrary to community law. Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has gone further by arguing that "no member state, even the biggest member state, can go it alone. Economic nationalism was never the solution and is even less so today." In the spring of 2006, the Commission initiated a number of actions to counter the rise of economic nationalism. These included a request to the European Court of Justice to rule on Poland's attempt to block an Italian lender from acquiring a stake in a Polish bank; a request to the Italian government to comply with a June 2005 ruling by the European court on investment in Italian energy companies; a similar request to the Spanish government to comply with the court's ruling over similar restrictions on foreign investment in Spanish energy companies, and a request to France to justify its 2005 foreign investment decree affecting foreign investment in strategic sectors. In reality, EU regulators lack sufficient powers to force countries to abide by various treaties intended to encourage competition and a single European market. Under competition policy rules, the Commission can examine whether state-sponsored mergers unduly impede competition, and, if necessary, impose conditions on such mergers that might limit the range of business activities of the merged company. The European competition rules, however, provide for such an investigation only if one of the merged companies accounts for less than two-thirds of its sales in the domestic market. And under the current EU takeover directive, the EU Commission intervenes only if protective measures imposed by the government against foreign investors violate EU rules such as the principle of the free movement of capital. The takeover directive also contains exemptions and leeway for member states to adopt various kinds of anti-takeover defenses. Filing lawsuits against rule-breaking member states in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg can take years to resolve and may not guarantee results that are consistent with a single market. In addition, when the European Commission files lawsuits against member states in the European Court, it risks igniting nationalistic or anti-Brussels sympathies. There are at least two perspectives on the significance of the resurgence of economic nationalism. One view, which is more optimistic, interprets the resurgence as a reflection of how far the single market today has advanced, particularly as the blocking of mergers remains one of the few areas left for national authorities to play an interventionist role in a world where markets are increasingly global. A second view, which is more pessimistic, interprets the resurgence as part of larger pressures and developments that have put support for trade liberalization, as well as support for a strong Europe, on the defensive. This view sees the rise of government interventions primarily as a sign of how far liberalization of markets and the single market have advanced. As Europe-wide obligations have increasingly narrowed the scope for national authorities to impose barriers on intra-EU trade in goods, services, and people, issues of corporate control are viewed as one last area where national authorities still wield some power. Thus, it can be argued that recent actions to stop foreign takeovers represent the end of the battle, not the beginning. Unlike in the 1980s when the main opposition to the creation of a Single Market came from companies resistant to being exposed to more international competition, the main opposition today comes from national governments and politicians fearful of losing national prestige and jobs as a result of merger activity. From this perspective, with many of the larger and older members of the EU experiencing high unemployment and slow growth, a backlash against policy changes that encourage more competition and corporate restructuring should not be unexpected. These observers maintain that as firms begin to develop Europe-wide ambitions, especially in three fragmented industries—telecommunications, banking, and energy—the momentum behind EU liberalization policy will further erode the capacity and willingness of governments to pursue economically nationalistic policies. It is also emphasized that the resurgence of economic nationalism has emerged while Europe is experiencing a wave of mergers. The value of cross-border mergers involving EU-based firms as bidder and target in 2005 was the highest since the 1999-2000 Internet boom. Whatever the tendency towards protectionism, the vast majority of merger activity evidently is taking place without much public or political controversy. The optimistic view asserts that even some of the controversial mergers are being settled in a manner consistent with free market principles. Despite the early objections of the governments of Luxembourg and France, Mittal and Arcelor agreed in June 2006 to a merger creating the world's largest steel group. This outcome was trumpeted by the Financial Times as a "victory over economic protectionism or "patriotism" peddled by some continental European politicians." An alternative and more pessimistic perspective holds that anti-merger actions are symptomatic of a deeper process where progress on economic integration and completing the Single Market is slowing down. These actions are viewed not only as at odds with the EU's founding principles of a common market that binds the countries together, but also raise doubts over whether some member states have a different vision of Europe, where national interests take precedence over European interests. Some data do show that progress on implementing the Single Market is slowing. While many of the newer members are implementing Single Market directives in an exemplary manner, some of the older members are lagging in this regard. Beyond implementation lapses, there is plenty of scope for member states to shirk EU-wide obligations, as an increasing number of infringement cases seems to suggest. Moreover, in difficult economic times, the temptation for some governments to go down the nationalistic path seems to be increasing rather than decreasing. Intertwined with the upsurge in economic nationalism is the notion that the nationality of ownership matters. Thus the merger of two French or Polish firms is acceptable but the takeover of a French or Polish firm by an Italian or German firm is not. While this notion may not contradict EU law or obligations per se, it certainly contradicts the spirit. The EU embodies the notion that countries are better off when they share sovereignty and that nationality should not matter in the single market. But some countries or populist political leaders now appear more determined to defend sovereignty than cede powers to Europe. The Commission has long had to battle member states on such issues. But it has become less willing to do so recently after voters in France and the Netherlands last year rejected a common EU constitution casting doubt on French and Dutch willingness to accept direction from EU institutions in Brussels. Accordingly, some observers maintain that member states are ganging up on Brussels because it has lost some of its legitimacy. Although protectionism has always been present in the EU, commentators assert that what makes today's developments most striking is the way some governments—particularly France and Poland—present it in a positive light without even mentioning EU treaty obligations. As Dominique de Villepin, France's Prime Minister, stated in July 2005: "When the world is changing, it is a question of gathering our strengths... and defending France and other things French." Lech Kaczynski, the populist Polish president, put it even more bluntly by stating that "What interests the Poles is the future of Poland and not that of the EU." A number of polls show that the general public is becoming more skeptical about Europe as well. The United States and the EU share a huge and mutually beneficial economic partnership. As the largest bilateral trade and investment relationship in the world, actions by either economic superpower can have important economic and political repercussions not only for each other, but also the rest of the world. If anti-foreign merger actions escalate in Europe, the United States could have a number of concerns. Perhaps most importantly, resurgent protectionism could aggravate Europe's economic problems and lead to lower economic growth rates. In the process, U.S. exports to and investments in Europe could be curtailed. Resurgent economic nationalism that discriminates against U.S. companies could also provoke the United States, as well as other countries, to retaliate in response. Such a reaction could undermine the mutual economic benefits, including millions of jobs, that are derived from the robust two-way flow of foreign trade and investment. It could also hurt EU efforts to play a constructive foreign policy role, particularly in calling on other countries to open their markets and in bringing the Doha Round of multilateral trade negotiations to a successful conclusion. While these are all legitimate concerns, the EU's market opening activities still appear more powerful than the limited anti-merger actions of some governments. On balance, these anti-merger actions have had limited economic and political effects to date.

Several members of the European Union (EU) over the past two years have been erecting barriers to cross-border mergers and acquisitions, possibly in violation of their Single Market commitments. The main focus of these anti-competitive actions, often dubbed economic nationalism or economic patriotism by the press, is on corporate control, particularly in the banking, steel, and energy sectors. Unlike in the 1980s, when the main opposition to creation of the Single Market for goods, capital, labor, and services came from companies resistant to being exposed to more international competition, the main opposition to liberalization today comes from some member state governments (and or politicians) fearful of losing national prestige and jobs as a result of merger activity. This report examines the nature and significance of rising economic nationalism, as well as how U.S. interests may be affected. The report will be updated as events warrant.

As one of the federal government’s principal real estate and business agents, GSA has diverse activities and programs that have governmentwide implications. Its real estate portfolio, supply procurement and distribution activities, travel and transportation services, telecommunication and computer services, and property management and disposal functions involve huge sums of money and extensive interaction with both the federal and private sectors. In many respects, GSA is comparable to a large, diversified commercial business. If GSA were a private sector company, it would rank high, in terms of sales, on the Fortune 500 list of the largest U.S. companies. GSA spends billions of dollars to provide many of the facilities, goods, and services that federal agencies need to carry out their missions. Through various revolving or trust fund-type arrangements, GSA buys most of these goods and services from private vendors and resells them to agencies. Additionally, GSA arranges for federal agencies to purchase billions of dollars’ worth of goods and services directly from private vendors through its governmentwide supply, travel and transportation, automated data processing, and telecommunications contracts. Furthermore, when it was established in 1949, GSA was envisioned, primarily but not exclusively, as a policymaking body with the option of delegating its authority to other agencies while maintaining comprehensive accountability to Congress for economy and efficiency. In recent years, public sector organizations have faced demands to be more effective and less costly, coupled with a growing movement toward a performance-based approach to management. Congress enacted the Results Act in 1993 in conjunction with the Chief Financial Officers Act and information technology reform legislation, such as the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, to address these twin demands and to instill performance-based management in the federal government. The Results Act seeks to shift the focus of government decisionmaking and accountability away from a preoccupation with activities—such as grants and inspections made—to a focus on the results of those activities—such as real gains in employability, safety, responsiveness, or program quality. Under the Results Act, agencies like GSA are to develop strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. GSA and other agencies submitted the first cycle of the strategic plans to Congress in September 1997. Like other agencies, GSA submitted its first performance plan to OMB in the fall of 1997. OMB used these draft performance plans to develop and submit the first federal government performance plan to Congress in February 1998 with the President’s fiscal year 1999 budget. Agencies submitted their final performance plans to Congress after the submission of the President’s budget. Appendix II provides a more detailed discussion of the Results Act’s planning and reporting requirements. We found that overall, GSA’s performance plan does not provide a clear picture of expected performance across the agency. First, most of the performance goals and related measures are not quantifiable or results oriented. Second, GSA’s performance plan goals are not always linked to the specific program activities and funding in its budget. Finally, the performance plan does not adequately discuss its coordination with other agencies on GSA’s many crosscutting activities. GSA’s performance plan does not provide a succinct and concrete statement of expected performance for subsequent comparison with actual performance. Despite the expectations of the Results Act and related OMB guidance that annual performance goals be quantifiable, in our view, only 9 of the 31 performance goals in the plan have measures and targets that decisionmakers can use to gauge progress. For example, the performance goal of improving energy systems is expressed in quantifiable and time-bound terms and has a specific unit of measurement, a baseline, and numerical targets. Likewise, the performance goal on keeping GSA’s prices competitive has measures that are expressed in percentages or costs with baselines and accompanying targets. However, for the remaining 22 performance goals, 16 lack measures and targets needed to gauge performance; and 6 had a mix of some quantifiable measures and some still under development or had measures that are not specific enough to gauge performance. Furthermore, some of the performance measures do not appear to provide meaningful information as they relate to their stated goal. For example, the measure tracking the percentage of repair and alteration or new construction projects that are completed on or ahead of schedule seems unrelated to its goal of ensuring that its prices for primary products and services are competitive with those in the private sector. In addition, the plan has some goals that relate to space management but has no measures that relate to cost effectively managing its space—one of GSA’s primary functions. Finally, the goals as written in the performance plan are typically more activity or output oriented rather than results oriented as envisioned by the Results Act. For example, for the performance goal to “continue enhancement of financial, administrative and expert services contracts for Governmentwide asset management,” GSA set forth the following “measures”: awarding master contracts for payment systems; developing contracts for temporary services; completing the Management, Organization, Business Improvement Schedule; and developing a program for sale of receivables. These activities may be initially important to GSA in achieving its strategic goals and accomplishing its mission. However, these measures appear to us to be activities rather than measures, and the accompanying narrative provides no information that describes what these activities are or what outcomes they aim to achieve so that decisionmakers can understand their importance and gauge progress over time. Contrary to the Results Act and OMB guidance, GSA’s performance plan does not always show clear connections between the performance goals and the specific program activities and funding in its budget. Without such a linkage, decisionmakers cannot relate the performance goals in the plan to the program activities in the budget. Furthermore, they cannot readily assess how GSA intends to allocate its anticipated budgetary resources among its performance goals. Although the plan identifies a specific “funding” and “activity” category for most performance goals, the activity does not generally correspond to the specific program activities used in the agency’s budget request. For example, the performance goal to improve energy systems in federal buildings to meet or exceed the federal energy consumption standards for 2005 identifies the “Federal Buildings Fund” as the funding and “energy” as the activity, but the President’s budget for the Federal Buildings Fund does not have an energy program activity. Also, for some performance goals, the plan shows that “multiple” activities are involved but does not specifically identify the activities. Furthermore, because the plan does not identify the funding level for most of the activities named in the plan or the program activities in the budget request, the reader cannot determine how much funding GSA proposes to use to meet its performance goals. In addition, contrary to the criteria in the Results Act, some program activities assigned large levels of funding in the budget, such as construction and acquisition of facilities and construction of lease purchase facilities, are not linked to specific performance goals. We believe the plan would be more useful if the activity and funding identified with each performance goal could be easily linked to GSA’s budget request. The plan includes GSA’s mission statement and gives abbreviated versions of its strategic goals presented in its strategic plan, but they are not identified as such. Further, although none of the strategic goals were revised for the performance plan, we noted that GSA appears to have dropped two of the five objectives related to the fourth strategic goal but provides no rationale for this revision. Consequently, it may be difficult for the reader to judge whether the performance goals in the annual performance plan are related to and consistent with GSA’s strategic plan, as envisioned by the Results Act and OMB guidance. In addition, we noted that like the strategic plan, the performance plan does not address major management problems we and the GSA’s IG have identified in recent years. These include data reliability, which will be discussed in more detail later; insufficient management controls; and impediments to businesslike asset management in the real property area. In a January 29, 1998, memorandum to agencies, the Director of OMB said that “performance goals for corrective steps for major management problems should be included for problems whose resolution is mission-critical, or which could materially impede the achievement of program goals.” As we reported in January 1998, our work has shown over the years that major management problems at GSA have significantly hampered GSA’s and its stakeholder agencies’ abilities to accomplish their missions. Although GSA’s performance plan recognizes the crosscutting nature of its activities, it does not adequately explain how it will coordinate its crosscutting functions with the federal community. OMB Circular A-11, Sec. 220.8, states that the annual performance plan should identify performance goals that reflect activities being mutually undertaken to support programs of an interagency, crosscutting nature. Because GSA is an agency with governmentwide policysetting, oversight, and operational functions, its major activities collectively affect the whole federal community. Some of GSA’s specific performance goals are crosscutting in nature. For example, according to the plan, three of the performance goals under the goal to “promote responsible asset management” involve “collaboration among many federal agencies brought together by GSA” and “measurement of the results of policy initiatives will require collection of other agencies’ costs.” However, although the discussion of some of the efforts contain references to coordination with other federal agencies, the plan does not discuss how GSA will coordinate these efforts. In another example, GSA’s performance goal to improve access to quality child care for all federal employees does not explain exactly how GSA is coordinating with the federal community for this wide-reaching goal. In the excel-at-customer-service section, GSA generally describes what it is doing to better understand its customers’ needs. These actions include face-to-face meetings with customers or their agency representatives and working with interagency groups and councils. However, it is difficult to relate these actions to the specific crosscutting aspects of the goals in this section of the plan. GSA’s performance plan does not explicitly discuss the strategies—how it will use its operational processes, skills, and technologies—and resources (human, capital, information, or other resources) that will be needed to achieve its goals. Without this discussion, decisionmakers cannot determine if GSA has a sound approach for achieving its goals and using its resources wisely. GSA’s performance plan for the most part does not present clear and reasonable strategies for achieving its intended performance goals. The Results Act and OMB Circular A-11 state that the performance plan should briefly describe the agency’s strategies to accomplish its performance goals. Specifically, we found that the narrative accompanying each objective and specific performance goal provides descriptive information on GSA activities. However, the narrative does not describe how GSA intends to meet the performance goals in the plan. For example, two of the three measures under the performance goal to increase market share for primary services are (1) the combined market share for information technology solutions and network services and (2) market share for fleet. Target percentages for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 are listed. The accompanying narrative, however, gives little indication of how GSA intends to increase its market share in these areas. GSA makes general statements about leveraging its competitive pricing with broad market penetration and government downsizing—“as the government downsizes agencies are looking to GSA to provide cost effective solutions to the workload needs and requirements.” However, it offers no information on its specific approach or strategy for how it plans to leverage prices or take advantage of downsizing to increase its market share for its vehicle fleet. Although the Results Act does not require that the performance plan specifically discuss the impact of external factors on achieving performance goals, we believe that a discussion of such factors would provide additional context regarding anticipated performance. In its September 1997 strategic plan, GSA identified four external factors—economic conditions, social policy, changes in technology and the marketplace, and legislative framework—that could likely affect its overall performance. GSA’s performance plan does not explicitly discuss these factors or their impact on achieving the performance goals. In addition, other external factors that we have reported on over the years—such as the lengthy prospectus authorization process and budget scorekeeping rules that favor operating leases over ownership—are not mentioned in the performance plan. GSA’s performance plan does not adequately discuss the resources it will use to achieve the performance goals. The Results Act and OMB Circular A-11 specify that the performance plan should briefly describe the human, capital, information, or other resources it will use to achieve its performance goals. Most of the performance goals in GSA’s performance plan contain a subheading entitled “Human, Capital, Information, or Other Resources”; however, the information under these subheadings, which typically said “no additional resources required,” falls short of the Results Act criterion that the plan briefly describe the resources needed to achieve performance goals. We found that only 3 of the 31 performance goals specified any amount of budgetary resources associated with the achievement of the performance goal. Even in these three cases, there is no explanation of specifically how the funds will be used. We also noted that two goals made a limited reference to staffing issues. For example, for the performance goal to implement capital planning for information technology to comply with the Clinger-Cohen Act, the plan identifies the type of staff (project managers, planners, budget analysts, and executives) that will be involved. However, the plan does not contain any information on how GSA intends to use its resources to achieve its performance goals. We found that GSA’s performance plan partially meets the Results Act criteria related to including information on verifying and validating performance data. Although GSA included information on the general approaches it will use to ensure that performance information is reliable, the plan makes no reference to ongoing controls and procedures that are in place to ensure data integrity. A succinct discussion of some of these procedures and controls would provide decisionmakers with better insights into, and confidence in, what is being done to prevent the use of unreliable data. Also, we found that the plan does not contain a discussion of actions GSA will take or has taken to address known data limitations. The Results Act does not require a discussion of data limitations in the performance plan; however, an explanation of such limitations can provide decisionmakers with a context for understanding and assessing agencies’ performance and the costs and challenges agencies face in gathering, processing, and analyzing needed data. This discussion on data limitations can help identify the actions needed to improve the agency’s ability to measure its performance. GSA’s performance plan partially discusses how the agency will ensure that its performance information is sufficiently verified and validated. Specifically, we found that the plan highlights the importance of having credible data. It also meets the intent of the Results Act by identifying actions that GSA believes will identify data problems. These include audits of its financial records and systems by an independent accounting firm and top level quarterly meetings to review the financial and programmatic results of its various business lines. However, we believe that the performance plan would be greatly improved if GSA were to also highlight some of the specific controls it may use for its major systems to verify and validate performance information on an ongoing basis. Such controls could include periodic data reliability tests, computer edit controls, and supervisory reviews of data used to develop performance measures. Various financial audits and management reviews are certainly useful steps to identifying data problems that require management attention; but they are no substitute for effective front-end procedures, practices, and controls to ensure data reliability—a critical component of performance measurement. GSA has had financial and program audits on an ongoing basis for many years. However, despite these efforts, the agency has a history of data problems as shown by our work and that of the IG (this work is discussed later in more detail). A succinct discussion of the major procedures and controls that are in place to ensure credible data, at least for the more important systems, would be more helpful to decisionmakers in assessing the reliability of the data being used to gauge performance. GSA’s performance plan does not discuss known data limitations that could raise questions about the validity of the performance measures GSA plans to use. For several years, our work and that of the IG have identified several data reliability problems at GSA. Our work showed that GSA lacked the timely, accurate, and reliable program data needed to effectively manage and oversee its various activities and programs. Between 1994 and 1997, IG audits of the internal controls over the production of reliable data to support various GSA performance measures found problems. Specifically, of the eight audits conducted, controls designed to produce reliable data to support various GSA performance measures were found to be at moderate risk in three, high risk in one, and low risk in the other four. In February 1998, the IG reported on reviews of two additional performance measures; one was low risk, and the other was removed from the Fiscal Year 1997 Annual Report as a result of issues raised during the IG review. In addition, the IG reported in its October 31, 1997, Semiannual Report to Congress that many of the 87 major systems GSA uses to support its functions are old and incorporate inefficient technologies compared with today’s advanced systems. Modification and maintenance of these old systems have become complex and costly. Finally, the independent audit of GSA’s 1996 and 1997 financial statements noted data problems related to property account classifications for construction projects and access controls over the Federal Supply Service’s information systems. Also, the independent auditors reported that although the Public Buildings Service has addressed certain deficiencies in its internal control structure, attention to improving internal controls in its business and financial processes is required to assess, improve, and report the results of program performance. Despite such evidence that suggests data reliability is still a major problem, the performance plan is silent on this critical issue. At a minimum, it would have been helpful if the plan had an explicit discussion of current data reliability problems and how GSA plans to address them. GSA’s performance plan falls short of meeting the criteria set forth in the Results Act and related OMB guidance. It is not a stand-alone document that provides a clear road map of what GSA wants to accomplish, how it plans to get there, and what results it expects to achieve. The plan does not fully meet the Results Act criteria for objective, measurable, and quantifiable goals and measures and lacks clear connections between the performance goals and the specific program activities in GSA’s budget. The performance plan also lacks an adequate explanation of how it will coordinate its crosscutting functions with the federal community. In addition, it often does not contain meaningful discussions on the strategies and resources GSA plans to use to meet its goals and achieve intended results and on the questions surrounding data reliability. We recognize that this is the first performance plan developed under the Results Act, and, as such, there is a large learning process in understanding what constitutes a good plan. However, this and future plans can be significantly improved if they follow the criteria set forth in the Results Act and related guidance more closely. We recommend that the GSA Administrator take steps to ensure that GSA’s fiscal year 2000 performance plan (1) conforms with the criteria in the Results Act and related OMB guidance and (2) gives decisionmakers a better framework for gauging GSA’s performance. Specifically, in developing the next plan, we recommend that the Administrator take steps to refine GSA’s performance goals to make them more quantifiable and results clarify how GSA’s performance goals link to specific program activities in GSA’s budget; explain how GSA has coordinated its crosscutting functions with the discuss GSA strategies to be used and resources needed to achieve its performance goals and their intended results, as well as external factors that could affect its overall performance; and discuss specific controls for verifying and validating data used to measure performance, recognize existing data limitations, and explain GSA efforts to overcome those limitations. On April 9, 1998, we obtained oral comments from GSA’s Chief Financial Officer, Director of the Office of Performance Management, and Managing Director for Planning on a draft of this report. They said that GSA generally agreed with our analysis and will implement our recommendations when it prepares the fiscal year 2000 performance plan. As you know, 31 U.S.C. 720 requires that the head of a federal agency submit a written statement of actions taken on our 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 report. A written statement must be sent to the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations with the agency’s first request for appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of this report. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the statement. We are sending copies of this report to each of the individual requesters of our work in this area; the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of other Committees that have jurisdiction over GSA activities; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will be made available to others on request. Major contributors to this report are listed in attachment III. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-8387. This appendix contains a compilation of guidance on annual performance plans, including the Results Act, GAO reports, and OMB documents, and is arranged by the major issues discussed in this report. The Government Performance and Results Act (Results Act), 31 U.S.C. 1115(a)(1), 1115(a)(2), 1115(a)(4), 1115(a)(5), 1115(b), and 1115(c). Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Report accompanying the Results Act (Senate Report 103-58, June 16, 1993), pp. 15-16, “Performance Plans”; p. 29, “Performance Goals”; pp. 29-30, “Performance Indicators”; and p. 30, “Alternative Forms of Measurement.” OMB Circular A-11, secs. 220.1, 220.4, 220.10(a), 220.10(b), 220.10(c), 220.14, 220.16, 220.17, 221.4(a), 221.4(b), and 221.4(d). OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), pp. 1-2, “Coverage of Program Activities”; pp. 3-4, “Annual Performance Goals”; p. 4, “Performance Indicators”; and p. 5, “Alternative Form of Measurement.” The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), pp. 55-57, 61-63, and 71-72. Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996), pp. 24-26. Implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), A Report on the Chief Financial Officer’s Role and Other Issues Critical to the Governmentwide Success of GPRA, Chief Financial Officers Council, GPRA Implementation Committee, May 1995. Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), pp. 10-11. The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), pp. 14-19. Results Act, 5 U.S.C. 306(c), 31 U.S.C. 1115(a), and 31 U.S.C. 1115(c). Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Report accompanying the Results Act (Senate Report 103-58, June 16, 1993), pp. 15-16, “Performance Plans”; p. 29, “Performance Goals”; and p. 31, “Coverage of Program Activities.” OMB Circular A-11, secs. 210.2(c), 210.4, 220.3, 220.4, 220.5, 220.6, 220.7, 220.8, 220.9(a), 220.9(b), 220.9(d), 220.9(e), 220.10(c), 221.3, 221.4(b). OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), pp. 1-2, “Coverage of Program Activities”; pp. 3-4, “Annual Performance Goals”; p. 7, “Mission Statement and General Goals and Objectives”; and p. 8, “Budget Account Restructuring.” The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), pp. 90-93. Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA Implementation (GAO/AIMD-97-46, Mar. 27, 1997). Integrating Performance Measurement into the Budget Process, Chief Financial Officers Council, GPRA Implementation Committee Subcommittee Project, September 22, 1997. Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), pp. 12-14. The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), pp. 19-29. OMB Circular A-11, secs. 220.8, 220.10(b), and 221.4(c). OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), p. 8, “Cross-cutting Programs.” Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug. 29, 1997). The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), pp. 53-55. Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), p. 15. The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), p 29-30. Results Act, 31 U.S.C. 1115(a)(3) and 31 U.S.C. 9703. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Report accompanying Results Act (Senate Report 103-58, June 16, 1993), pp. 15-16, “Performance Plans”; pp. 17-18, “Managerial Flexibility Waivers”; and pp. 34-36, “Section 5. Managerial Accountability and Flexibility.” OMB Circular A-11, secs. 220.10(b), 220.12(a), 220.12(b), 220.12(c), and 221.4(b). OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), p. 6, “Means and Strategies”; p. 8, “Tax Expenditures and Regulation”; and p. 8, “External Factors.” The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), pp. 63-66. Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide, Version 3 (GAO/AIMD-10.1.15, Apr. 1997). Privatization: Lessons Learned by State and Local Governments (GAO/GGD-97-48, Mar. 14, 1997). Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996), pp. 18-21 and 24-26. Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), pp. 17-18. The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), pp. 32-36. Results Act, 31 U.S.C. 1115(a)(3). Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Report accompanying Results Act (Senate Report 103-58, June 16, 1993), pp. 15-16, “Performance Plans”; and pp. 29-30, “Performance Indicators.” OMB Circular A-11, secs. 220.1, 220.9(a), 220.9(e), 220.10(c), 220.11(a), 220.11(b), 220.11(c), 220.12(a), 220.12(d), and Part 3. OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), p. 5, “Future Year Performance”; p. 5, “Performance Goals Funded By Prior Year Appropriations”; and p. 6, “Means and Strategies.” OMB Capital Programming Guide, v. 1.0 (July 1997). Executive Guide: Measuring Performance and Demonstrating Results of Information Technology Investments (GAO/AIMD-97-163, Sept. 1997). The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), pp. 90-97. Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, Sept. 1997). Assessing Risks and Returns: A Guide for Evaluating Federal Agencies’ IT Investment Decision-making, Version 1 (GAO/AIMD-10.1.13, Feb. 1997). Information Technology Investment: Agencies Can Improve Performance, Reduce Costs, and Minimize Risks (GAO/AIMD-96-64, Sept. 30, 1996). Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996), pp. 18-21 and 39-46. Transforming the Civil Service: Building the Workforce of the Future—Results of a GAO-Sponsored Symposium (GAO/GGD-96-35, Dec. 26, 1995). Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) Volume 1 Original Statements: Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts and Standards, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 1, Objectives of Federal Financial Reporting (GAO/AIMD-21.1.1, Mar. 1997), pp. 11-62. FASAB Volume 1 Original Statements: Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts and Standards, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Standards (GAO/AIMD-21.1.1, Mar. 1997), pp. 331-394. Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), pp. 19-20. The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), pp. 36-38. Results Act, 31 U.S.C. 1115 (a)(6). Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs Report accompanying Results Act (Senate Report 103-58, June 16, 1993), p. 30, “Verification and Validation.” OMB Circular A-11, secs. 220.7, 220.13, and 221.5. OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), p. 7, “Verification and Validation.” Executive Guide: Information Security Management (GAO/AIMD-98-21, Nov. 1997). Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996), pp. 27-29. GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb. 14, 1996) pp. 6-8 and 11. FASAB Volume 1 Original Statements: Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts and Standards (GAO/AIMD-21.1.1, Mar. 1997). Budget and Financial Management: Progress and Agenda for the Future (GAO/T-AIMD-96-80, Apr. 23, 1996). Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), p. 22. The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), pp. 41-43. OMB Circular A-11, sec. 221.5. OMB Checklist for Agency Annual Performance Plans (Nov. 24, 1997), p. 7, “Verification and Validation.” Managing for Results: Regulatory Agencies Identified Significant Barriers to Focusing on Results (GAO/GGD-97-83, June 24, 1997). The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), pp. 61-75. Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance (GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138, May 30, 1997). Measuring Performance: Strengths and Limitations of Research Indicators (GAO/RCED-97-91, Mar. 21, 1997). Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996), pp. 27-29. GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb. 14, 1996). Block Grants: Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions (GAO/AIMD-95-226, Sept. 1, 1995). Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under The Results Act: An Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking (GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18; Feb. 1998, Version 1), p. 23. The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20; Apr. 1998, Version 1), pp. 43-47. The Results Act is designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs by establishing a system to set goals for program performance and to measure results. Specifically, the Act requires executive agencies to prepare multiyear strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. The Results Act requires virtually every executive agency to develop strategic plans covering a period of at least 5 years forward from the fiscal year in which it is submitted and to update those plans at least every 3 years. Agencies’ first strategic plans were to be submitted to Congress and the Director of OMB by September 30, 1997. The strategic plans are to (1) include the agencies’ mission statements; (2) identify long-term general goals and objectives; (3) describe how the agencies intend to achieve those goals through their activities and through their human, capital, information, and other resources; and (4) explain the key external factors that could significantly affect the achievement of those goals. Under the Act, strategic plans are the starting point for agencies to set annual performance goals and to measure program performance in achieving those goals. Consequently, strategic plans are also to include a description of how long-term general goals will be related to annual performance goals as well as a description of the program evaluations that agencies used to establish their long-term general goals and a schedule for subsequent evaluations. As part of the strategic planning process, agencies are required to consult with Congress and solicit the views of other stakeholders—those governmental and nongovernmental entities potentially affected by, or interested in, the agencies’ activities. Building on the decisions made as part of the strategic planning process, the Results Act requires executive agencies to develop annual performance plans covering each program activity set forth in the agencies’ budgets. The first annual performance plans, covering fiscal year 1999, were to be submitted to OMB in the fall of 1997 and to Congress after the President’s budget in 1998. The Results Act requires that each agency prepare an annual performance plan that shall: “(1) establish performance goals to define the level of performance to be achieved by a program activity; “(2) express such goals in an objective, quantifiable, and measurable form unless authorized to be in an alternative form . . . ; “(3) briefly describe the operational processes, skills and technology, and the human, capital, information, or other resources required to meet the performance goals; “(4) establish performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each program activity; “(5) provide a basis for comparing actual program results with the established performance goals; and “(6) describe the means to be used to verify and validate measured values.” The Act authorizes agencies to apply for managerial flexibility waivers in their annual performance plans. Agencies’ authority to request waivers of nonstatutory administrative procedural requirements and controls is intended to provide federal managers with more flexibility to structure agency systems to better support performance goals. An example of increased flexibility would be to allow an organization to recapture unspent operating funds because of increased efficiencies and then to use these funds to purchase new equipment or expand employee training. Another example might involve delegating more authority to line managers to make procurement decisions. OMB is to use the performance plans that agencies submit to develop an overall federal government performance plan. OMB is to submit this governmentwide plan each year to Congress with the President’s budget. According to the Senate Committee report accompanying the Act, the overall federal government performance plan is to present to Congress a single, cohesive picture of the federal government’s annual performance goals for the fiscal year. The first overall plan was due with the President’s fiscal year 1999 budget. Finally, the Results Act requires each executive agency to prepare annual reports on program performance for the previous fiscal year. The first performance reports for fiscal year 1999 are due to Congress and the President no later than March 31, 2000; subsequent reports are due by March 31 for the years that follow. In each report, an agency is to review and discuss its performance compared with the performance goals it established in its annual performance plan. When a goal is not met, the agency is to explain in the report the reasons the goal was not met; plans and schedules for meeting the goal; and, if the goal was impractical or not feasible, the reasons for that and the actions recommended. According to the Senate committee report on the Act, actions needed to accomplish a goal could include legislative, regulatory, or other actions. If an agency finds a goal to be impractical or not feasible, it is to include a discussion of whether the goal should be modified. In addition to evaluating the progress made toward achieving its annual goals, an agency’s program performance report is to evaluate the agency’s performance plan for the fiscal year in which the performance report was submitted. Thus, in their fiscal year 1999 performance reports that are due by March 31, 2000, agencies are required to evaluate their performance plans for fiscal year 2000 on the basis of their reported performance in fiscal year 1999. This evaluation is to help show how an agency’s actual performance is influencing its performance plan. The report also is to include (1) the summary findings of program evaluations completed during the fiscal year covered by the report and (2) the use and effectiveness of any of the Results Act managerial flexibility waivers that an agency received. Agencies also are to include baseline and trend data in annual performance reports to help ensure that their reports are complete and that performance is viewed in context. Such data can show whether performance goals are realistic given the past performance of an agency. Such data can also assist users of reports to draw more informed conclusions than they would if they compared only a single year’s performance against an annual goal, because users of reports can see improvements or declines in an agency’s performance over prior years.For fiscal years 2000 and 2001, agencies’ reports are to include data on the extent to which their performance achieved their goals, beginning with fiscal year 1999. For each subsequent year, agencies are to include performance data for the year covered by the report and 3 prior years. Congress recognized that in some cases not all the performance data will be available in time for the required reporting date. In such cases, agencies are to provide whatever data are available with a notation as to their incomplete status. Subsequent annual performance reports are to include the complete data as part of the trend information. Joan Hawkins, Assistant Director Franklin Deffer, Assistant Director Laura Castro, 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. 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.

GAO reviewed the General Services Administration's (GSA) fiscal year (FY) 1999 annual performance plan, which was submitted to Congress as required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. GAO noted that: (1) GSA's performance plan has several performance goals for each of its strategic goals; (2) some of its performance goals and measures are objective and quantified and provide a way to compare actual to planned performance; (3) in addition, the plan contains some goals and measures that involve comparisons of GSA and the private sector; (4) however, for the most part, the plan falls short of meeting the criteria set forth in the Results Act and related guidance; (5) it does not adequately provide a clear picture of expected performance across the agency because: (a) like the goals in its strategic plan, many performance goals, and related measures, are not quantifiable or results oriented; (b) performance plan goals are not always linked to the specific program activities and funding in its budget; and (c) also like the strategic plan, the performance plan does not discuss GSA's coordination efforts for many crosscutting activities; (6) GAO also found that the performance plan generally does not have an explicit discussion of the strategies and resources that will be needed to achieve goals or the external factors that will affect accomplishment of the goals; and (7) although the plan includes a discussion of how GSA plans to verify performance data that provides partial confidence that performance information will be credible, it does not discuss the actions GSA has taken or will take to address known data limitations.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: We are pleased to be here today to discuss the implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. As you requested, we have reviewed selected aspects of the act’s implementation by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and three agencies—the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In your request letter, you noted that participants at last year’s White House Conference on Small Business believed these three agencies impose the most significant paperwork burdens on small businesses. We will focus on three main issues today: (1) changes in paperwork burden governmentwide and in the three selected agencies, (2) OMB’s responsibility to set goals for reducing such burden and whether agencies will achieve the burden reductions envisioned in the act, and (3) actions each of the three agencies have taken since the passage of the act. We will also discuss some measurement issues Congress needs to consider as it assesses agencies’ progress in reducing paperwork burden. First, however, a little background information is needed. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 amended and recodified the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, as amended. The 1995 act reaffirmed the principles of the original act and gave new responsibilities to OMB and executive branch agencies. Like the original statute, the 1995 act requires agencies to justify any collection of information from the public by establishing the need and intended use of the information, estimating the burden that the collection will impose on the respondents, and showing that the collection is the least burdensome way to gather the information. at the end of the fiscal year, and agency estimates of the burden for the coming fiscal year. The 1995 act also makes several changes in federal paperwork reduction requirements. For example, it requires OIRA to set goals of at least a 10-percent burden reduction governmentwide for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997, a 5-percent governmentwide burden reduction in each of the next 4 fiscal years, and annual agency goals that reduce burden to “the maximum practicable” extent. The act also redefines a “collection of information” to include required disclosures of information to third parties and the public, effectively overturning the Supreme Court’s 1990 Dole v. United Steelworkers of America decision. Finally, the 1995 act details new agency responsibilities for the review and control of paperwork. For example, it requires agencies to establish a 60-day public notice and comment period for each proposed collection of information before submitting the proposal to OMB for approval. OIRA uses the ICB information to assess whether agencies’ burden reduction goals are being met. OIRA classifies changes in burden-hour estimates as caused by either “program changes” or “adjustments.” Program changes are additions or reductions to existing paperwork requirements which are imposed either through new statutory requirements or an agency’s own initiative. Adjustments are changes in burden estimates caused by factors other than changes in the actual paperwork requirements, such as changes in the population responding to a requirement or agency reestimates of the burden associated with a collection of information. OIRA counts both program changes and adjustments when calculating an agency’s burden-hour baseline at the end of each fiscal year. However, OIRA does not count changes that are due to adjustments in determining whether an agency has achieved its burden reduction goal. Figure 1 shows changes in reported burden-hour estimates governmentwide and at IRS between September 30, 1980, and September 30, 1995—the day before the new act took effect. rose dramatically in 1989, and rose every year since then with the exception of 1993. In each year since fiscal year 1989, IRS’ paperwork burden has accounted for more than three-quarters of the governmentwide total. Increases or decreases in IRS’ total number of burden hours have had a dramatic effect on the governmentwide total. For example, the near tripling of the governmentwide burden-hour estimate during fiscal year 1989 was primarily because IRS changed the way it calculated its information collection burden, which increased its paperwork estimate by about 3.4 billion hours. Because the IRS paperwork burden is such a large portion of the governmentwide total, the success of any governmentwide effort to reduce burden largely depends on reducing the burden imposed by IRS. Figures 2 and 3 show the changes in the paperwork burden at EPA and OSHA, respectively, during the same 1980 to 1995 period. Statement Paperwork Reduction: Burden Reduction Goal Unlikely to Be Met Burden hours (in millions) Statement Paperwork Reduction: Burden Reduction Goal Unlikely to Be Met Burden hours (in millions) EPA’s burden-hour estimate rose sharply in the late 1980s, fell somewhat in 1991 (because third-party information collections were no longer being counted as a result of the Dole decision), and rose again between 1991 and 1995. OSHA’s burden-hour estimate increased gradually through 1987, rose rapidly in 1988, fell back to its previous level by 1990, and decreased slightly until it rose sharply between 1994 and 1995. Figure 4 shows the month-by-month changes in the governmentwide paperwork burden between September 30, 1994, and March 30, 1996—the period including the date the 1995 act was signed by the President (May 22, 1995) and its effective date (October 1, 1995). 6.90 billion hours on September 30, 1995. IRS increased its burden-hour estimate by more than 147.6 million burden hours (about 3 percent) between August and September; EPA’s estimate went up more than 21 million hours (more than 25 percent) during that month. OSHA’s burden-hour estimate rose most dramatically shortly before the effective date, from about 1.5 million hours on June 30, 1995, to about 208 million hours on September 30, 1995. Documents we reviewed and officials we talked to indicated that these increases occurred during this period because agencies were trying to get proposed information collections approved before the new act took effect on October 1, 1995. Some of the proposals at OSHA and EPA were third-party and public disclosures that had previously been removed from the agencies’ estimates because of the Dole decision. Other proposals, particularly those at OSHA, were third-party and public disclosures that had been added after the Dole decision. By getting these third-party and other proposed information collections approved before the act’s effective date, agencies were able to avoid the new requirements imposed by the act, including the 60-day public notice and comment period at the agencies. OIRA approved some of these collections of information for less than 1 year so that the agencies would have to clear the collections under the new process during fiscal year 1996. However, submitting the proposals for review and approval before the act took effect also raised the burden-hour baseline against which the agencies’ paperwork reduction goals would be judged. For example, the increase in OSHA’s burden-hour baseline from about 1.5 million hours to about 208 million hours between June and September 1995 meant that OSHA had to cut more burden hours to achieve a 10 percent reduction (20.8 million hours) than it would have had to cut before the increase (about 150,000 hours). One of the key features of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is the requirement that OIRA set both governmentwide and agency-specific burden reduction goals for fiscal year 1996 and for the next 5 fiscal years. However, as of May 31, 1996, OIRA had not set any such goals. More importantly, information that the agencies submitted to OIRA indicated that the burden reduction target that the act specified for fiscal year 1996 is unlikely to be reached. OIRA staff told us that they plan to set the fiscal year 1996 burden reduction goals in a soon-to-be-published ICB. As part of the ICB development process, in September 1995, OIRA asked agencies to project what their burden-hour levels would be at the end of fiscal year 1996. Agencies submitted that information to OIRA between December 1995 and February 1996. OIRA staff said that they will establish a governmentwide burden reduction goal of 10 percent for fiscal year 1996, as the act requires. They also said that agency goals will reflect the end-of-fiscal year 1996 burden-hour estimates that the agencies provided in their ICB submissions unless changed as a result of OIRA review. According to unpublished information we obtained from OIRA and the agencies, the weighted average of the agencies’ burden reduction projections is about 1 percent. If these projections are accurate, the fiscal year 1996 goal of a 10-percent reduction in governmentwide paperwork burden that the 1995 act calls for will not be accomplished. Figure 5 shows the actual month-to-month governmentwide paperwork estimates from March 1995 to March 1996 and, according to our calculations, what the number of burden hours would have been by the end of fiscal year 1996 if the 10-percent burden reduction goal had been achieved and what the burden-hour total is expected to be on the basis of agencies’ projections. Statement Paperwork Reduction: Burden Reduction Goal Unlikely to Be Met Burden hours (in billions) that will not add up to the governmentwide goal of a 10-percent reduction in burden. “individual agency goals negotiated with OIRA may differ depending on the agency’s potential to reduce the paperwork burden such agency imposes on the public. Goals negotiated with some agencies may substantially exceed the Government-wide goal, while those negotiated with other agencies may be substantially less.” In addition to setting goals for paperwork reduction, the act requires OIRA to “keep the Congress and congressional committees fully and currently informed of the major activities under this chapter.” However, as of May 31, 1996, the OIRA Administrator had not informed Congress or congressional committees (1) about why OIRA has not established any burden reduction goals to date and (2) that agency projections OIRA received at least 3 months ago indicated that the 10 percent governmentwide paperwork reduction goal called for in the act would not be achieved. Both of these issues appear to us to be “major activities” subject to the act’s requirement that the OIRA Administrator keep Congress fully and currently informed. Information collection is one method by which agencies carry out their missions, and those missions are established by Congress through legislation. For the past several years, the ICBs have indicated that agencies’ burden-hour estimates increased because of congressionally imposed statutory requirements. For example, the fiscal year 1993 ICB noted that title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established new permitting requirements for emission sources that produce nitrous oxides, resulting in a 1.8 million hour increase to EPA’s burden-hour estimate. As a result of such requirements, some agencies contend that they are limited in the amount to which they can reduce their paperwork burden. If agencies’ paperwork requirements are truly statutorily mandated, those agencies may not be able to reduce their burden-hour estimates by the amounts envisioned in the 1995 act without changes in the legislation underlying those requirements. However, neither we nor OIRA have assessed the extent to which the paperwork burden agencies impose is directly a consequence of statutory requirements and, therefore, is out of agencies’ control. Even though a statute may require an agency to take certain actions, the agency may have discretion regarding whether paperwork requirements need to be imposed and, if so, the manner or frequency with which the information is collected. For example, although several statutes require employers to provide training to employees, OSHA may have discretion to determine whether employers need to submit paperwork to demonstrate their compliance with these provisions. As a part of their ICB submissions to OIRA, EPA, IRS, and OSHA each projected what it believed its total number of burden-hours would be as of September 30, 1996. Each agency also took different steps to reduce its paperwork burden. EPA has its own effort to reduce paperwork that began before the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 took effect. EPA has set an internal burden-reduction target and expects to reach that target by the end of this year. Despite these efforts, EPA reported that their burden-hour reductions will be largely offset by increases in statutorily-based information collections. In March 1995, the EPA Administrator committed to reducing the agency’s January 1, 1995, estimated paperwork burden by 25 percent by June 1996. Initially, EPA estimated that its January 1995 baseline was about 81 million burden hours, so a 25-percent reduction would bring the agency’s total to about 61 million hours. In March of this year, we provided a statement for the record to the House Committee on Small Business indicating that, despite these planned reductions, EPA projected that its burden-hour total would increase to about 117 million hours by September 30, 1996—an increase of about 44 percent from EPA’s January 1995 baseline. projection for September 30, 1996, from 117 million hours to about 100 million hours. EPA officials said their projection was revised because some planned information collections would not be approved by OIRA by the end of the fiscal year and because their original estimate did not include all of the burden-hour reductions that EPA now expects to make by the end of the fiscal year. Using EPA’s most recent estimates, figure 6 shows EPA’s burden-hour baseline as of January 1, 1995, the 25-percent reduction goal that EPA expects to accomplish by December 31, 1996, and the total number of burden hours that EPA currently projects will be in place as of September 30, 1996. As you can see, despite EPA’s burden-reduction efforts during this period, EPA’s burden-hour estimate at the end of this fiscal year is expected to be about what it was at the start of those efforts. This is because, at the same time EPA has been reducing its January 1995 paperwork inventory, new burden hours have been added to that inventory. According to EPA, those additions are primarily third-party burden hours that are now being counted as a result of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and new information collections associated with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. Statement Paperwork Reduction: Burden Reduction Goal Unlikely to Be Met Burden hours (in millions) Does not include about 9 million hours of third party burden. Does not include about 5 million hours of TRI burden. 5 million hours of burden associated with the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). Although EPA’s efforts to reduce burden hours have been almost totally offset by new information collection requirements, EPA’s attempt to reduce its paperwork burden may prevent what would otherwise be a significant increase in the agency’s paperwork burden. As of May 1996, EPA said that it had completed reductions of about 15 million hours and had identified about 8 million more hours of burden for elimination. If these figures are accurate, EPA would need to eliminate the 8 million burden hours it had identified and identify and eliminate about 2 million more hours to reach its goal of reducing its 101 million burden-hour baseline by 25 percent. Without the burden-hour reductions EPA says it has accomplished or has in progress, the agency’s paperwork burden could have increased by 25 percent by the end of the year. Although EPA’s initiative to reduce the burden it imposes is promising, its burden-reduction claims warrant continued scrutiny. As we reported in our March 1996 statement for the record to the House Small Business Committee, some of EPA’s February 1996 burden reduction estimates were overstated. For example, EPA initially claimed that a recently adopted TRI reporting option reduced the burden associated with TRI by about 1.2 million hours. However, EPA did not offset this reduction by the additional paperwork burden it created—about 800,000 hours—that would be incurred by those choosing this option. Therefore, the real burden reduction was about 400,000 hours. EPA estimated that it had reduced the burden associated with its land disposal restrictions program by 1.6 million hours, but its January 1, 1995, baseline indicated that the entire program only accounted for about 800,000 hours. to revise its January 1, 1995, baseline from which the burden-hour reductions are being taken. Reducing burden on the taxpayer is one of the primary goals in IRS’s Business Master Plan, in which the agency identifies a number of burden-reduction actions that it plans to take. In its ICB submission, IRS said that it plans to reduce its measured paperwork burden by about 50 million hours (0.9 percent) during fiscal year 1996 by simplifying forms and instructions, changing reporting thresholds, and moving eligible taxpayers to “E-Z” versions of required forms. IRS officials said they are limited in the amount to which they can reduce the agency’s paperwork burden because most of IRS’ information collections are statutorily mandated in the tax code. They said that unless changes are made to the substantive requirements in the code, IRS will not be able to substantially reduce its paperwork burden. IRS officials also said that significant portions of the agency’s efforts to reduce its burden focus on types of burden that are not covered by the Paperwork Reduction Act. For example, they said that a major part of the real paperwork burden on the taxpayer comes from responding to IRS notices, and IRS has a major initiative under way to determine which notices can be eliminated, combined, or simplified. However, they said that notices are not covered by the act because they focus on information collected from a single individual in the course of an investigation or inquiry. OSHA officials said that they assumed their agency would be responsible for reducing its burden by 10 percent during fiscal year 1996 as its share of the governmentwide goal. In its 1995 ICB submission to the Department of Labor, OSHA said that it would reduce its fiscal year 1995 paperwork burden by 8.7 million hours (about 4 percent) during fiscal year 1996 by dropping a number of certification requirements. Although OSHA has begun the process of eliminating these certification requirements, in the spring of 1996 OSHA officials told us that the process may not be completed in time to eliminate the requirements by the end of the fiscal year. After submission of its ICB, OSHA officials discovered that they could claim additional burden reductions. OSHA’s Process Safety Management of Highly Hazardous Chemicals Standard is a third-party information collection that the agency added to its burden-hour total in August 1995. At that time, OSHA officials estimated the paperwork requirements associated with the standard at 135 million burden hours. In keeping with a schedule established by the standard when it was issued in 1992, the burden imposed on employers declined in May 1996 because they were no longer required to perform certain recordkeeping functions after that date. OSHA officials said that they initially considered the decline in employer responsibilities an adjustment, which could not be counted toward the agency’s 10 percent burden reduction goal in their ICB submission. However, they said the Department of Labor paperwork clearance official told them the change should be considered a program change, and therefore should be counted as part of OSHA’s paperwork reduction effort. Consequently, OSHA reduced its 135 million burden-hour estimate by 17 million hours—8 percent of OSHA’s total fiscal year 1995 burden. As Congress exercises oversight in this area, it is important that it keep in mind several measurement issues. As noted previously, OIRA does not count any adjustments (because of reestimates or population changes) that agencies submit with their information collection requests in determining whether an agency has met its paperwork burden reduction goals. Therefore, an agency that initially submits a high estimate and later revises it downward does not get credit from OIRA for the reduction. Conversely, if an agency initially submits a low paperwork estimate and later increases the estimate, OIRA never counts the increase against the agency for goal attainment purposes. In fact, the governmentwide increase of about 1 billion burden hours between 1990 and 1995 was primarily driven by adjustments that never counted against agencies’ goals. OIRA staff told us they were not aware of any evidence that agencies were systematically underestimating the burden associated with their information collections and then revising them upward. interpreting the official burden-hour statistics. Most or all of the burden-hour increase may have actually existed since 1980 when the original Paperwork Reduction Act became effective. If this were the case, the statistics available to policymakers would seriously underestimate the burden actually imposed on the public, and figure 1 would overstate the degree to which paperwork burden actually increased since 1980. The increase in measured burden as a consequence of the inclusion of third-party and public disclosures in September 1995 was similar to the IRS reestimate; the burden already existed but had just not been previously measured. Likewise, the burden felt by the public does not diminish when an agency recalculates a lower estimate of its paperwork burden without eliminating any existing requirements. Relatedly, it is important that Congress be aware that certain elements of agencies’ information collection burden are not reflected in some burden-hour estimates. As we mentioned earlier, OIRA does not count about 5 million hours of paperwork burden associated with EPA’s TRI reporting form because the form is not submitted for OIRA approval. IRS’s burden-hour estimates do not include such information collections as notices involving errors, nonfilings, and delinquencies because they are exempted from coverage under the act. Finally, as we have said in previous reports and testimonies, users of paperwork burden-hour estimates should proceed with great caution. The degree to which such estimates reflect real burden and the factors that cause changes to the burden-hour totals are often unclear. Nevertheless, they are the best indicators of paperwork burden available, and we believe that they can be useful as long as their limitations are borne in mind. Mr. Chairman, this completes our prepared statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions. 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 governmentwide implementation of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and three federal agencies' actions to implement the act. GAO noted that: (1) between 1980 and 1995, reported governmentwide paperwork burden hours increased from about 1.5 billion to 6.9 billion; (2) the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) accounts for most of the federal paperwork burden; (3) IRS accounted for a three-fold increase in 1989 because it changed the way it calculated its information collection burden; (4) governmentwide burden hours increased almost 8 percent in the month before the act's effective date because agencies were trying to get proposed information collection activities approved before that date; (5) as of May 1996, the Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs had not set burden reduction goals or kept Congress informed about implementation progress; (6) agencies' weighted average burden reduction is likely to be 1 percent for fiscal year (FY) 1996, but the act's FY 1996 reduction goal is 10 percent; (7) agencies believe that statutory mission-related requirements limit their ability to reduce paperwork burdens; and (8) Congress should consider several measurement issues, including counting adjustments toward or against reduction goals, the difference between measured and actual paperwork burdens, and potentially incomplete agency burden estimates.

The announcement early yesterday morning of experimental evidence for what’s presumably the Higgs particle brings a certain closure to a story I’ve watched (and sometimes been a part of) for nearly 40 years. In some ways I felt like a teenager again. Hearing about a new particle being discovered. And asking the same questions I would have asked at age 15. “What’s its mass?” “What decay channel?” “What total width?” “How many sigma?” “How many events?” When I was a teenager in the 1970s, particle physics was my great interest. It felt like I had a personal connection to all those kinds of particles that were listed in the little book of particle properties I used to carry around with me. The pions and kaons and lambda particles and f mesons and so on. At some level, though, the whole picture was a mess. A hundred kinds of particles, with all sorts of detailed properties and relations. But there were theories. The quark model. Regge theory. Gauge theories. S-matrix theory. It wasn’t clear what theory was correct. Some theories seemed shallow and utilitarian; others seemed deep and philosophical. Some were clean but boring. Some seemed contrived. Some were mathematically sophisticated and elegant; others were not. By the mid-1970s, though, those in the know had pretty much settled on what became the Standard Model. In a sense it was the most vanilla of the choices. It seemed a little contrived, but not very. It involved some somewhat sophisticated mathematics, but not the most elegant or deep mathematics. But it did have at least one notable feature: of all the candidate theories, it was the one that most extensively allowed explicit calculations to be made. They weren’t easy calculations—and in fact it was doing those calculations that got me started having computers to do calculations, and set me on the path that eventually led to Mathematica. But at the time I think the very difficulty of the calculations seemed to me and everyone else to make the theory more satisfying to work with, and more likely to be meaningful. At the least in the early years there were still surprises, though. In November 1974 there was the announcement of the J/psi particle. And one asked the same questions as today, starting with “What’s the mass?” (That particle’s was 3.1 GeV; today’s is 126 GeV.) But unlike with the Higgs particle, to almost everyone the J/psi was completely unexpected. At first it wasn’t at all clear what it could be. Was it evidence of something truly fundamental and exciting? Or was it in a sense just a repeat of things that had been seen before? My own very first published paper (feverishly worked on over Christmas 1974 soon after I turned 15) speculated that it and some related phenomena might be something exciting: a sign of substructure in the electron. But however nice and interesting a theory may be, nature doesn’t have to follow it. And in this case it didn’t. And instead the phenomena that had been seen turned out to have a more mundane explanation: they were signs of an additional (4th) kind of quark (the c or charm quark). In the next few years, more surprises followed. Mounting evidence showed that there was a heavier analog of the electron and muon—the tau lepton. Then in July 1977 there was another “sudden discovery”, made at Fermilab: this time of a particle based on the b quark. I happened to be spending the summer of 1977 doing particle physics at Argonne National Lab, not far away from Fermilab. And it was funny: I remember there was a kind of blasé attitude toward the discovery. Like “another unexpected particle physics discovery; there’ll be lots more”. But as it turned out that’s not what happened. It’s been 35 years, and when it comes to new particles and the like, there really hasn’t been a single surprise. (The discovery of neutrino masses is a partial counterexample, as are various discoveries in cosmology.) Experiments have certainly discovered things—the W and Z bosons, the validity of QCD, the top quark. But all of them were as expected from the Standard Model; there were no surprises. Needless to say, verifying the predictions of the Standard Model hasn’t always been easy. A few times I happened to be at the front lines. In 1977, for example, I computed what the Standard Model predicted for the rate of producing charm particles in proton-proton collisions. But the key experiment at the time said the actual rate was much lower. I spent ages trying to figure out what might be wrong—either with my calculations or the underlying theory. But in the end—in a rather formative moment for my understanding of applying the scientific method—it turned out that what was wrong was actually the experiment, not the theory. In 1979—when I was at the front lines of the “discovery of the gluon”—almost the opposite thing happened. The conviction in the Standard Model was by then so great that the experiments agreed too early, even before the calculations were correctly finished. Though once again, in the end all was well, and the method I invented for doing analysis of the experiments is in fact still routinely used today. By 1981 I myself was beginning to drift away from particle physics, not least because I’d started to work on things that I thought were somehow more fundamental. But I still used to follow what was happening in particle physics. And every so often I’d get excited when I heard about some discovery rumored or announced that seemed somehow unexpected or inexplicable from the Standard Model. But in the end it was all rather disappointing. There’d be questions about each discovery—and in later years there’d often be suspicious correlations with deadlines for funding decisions. And every time, after a while, the discovery would melt away. Leaving only the plain Standard Model, with no surprises. Through all of this, though, there was always one loose end dangling: the Higgs particle. It wasn’t clear just what it would take to see it, but if the Standard Model was correct, it had to exist. To me, the Higgs particle and the associated Higgs mechanism had always seemed like an unfortunate hack. In setting up the Standard Model, one begins with a mathematically quite pristine theory in which every particle is perfectly massless. But in reality almost all particles (apart from the photon) have nonzero masses. And the point of the Higgs mechanism is to explain this—without destroying desirable features of the original mathematical theory. Here’s how it basically works. Every type of particle in the Standard Model is associated with waves propagating in a field—just as photons are associated with waves propagating in the electromagnetic field. But for almost all types of particles, the average amplitude value of the underlying field is zero. But for the Higgs field, one imagines something different. One imagines instead that there’s a nonlinear instability that’s built into the mathematical equations that govern it, that leads to a nonzero average value for the field throughout the universe. And it’s then assumed that all types of particles continually interact with this background field—in such a way as to act so that they have a mass. But what mass? Well, that’s determined by how strongly a particle interacts with the background field. And that in turn is determined by a parameter that one inserts into the model. So to get the observed masses of the particles, one’s just inserting one parameter for each particle, and then arranging it to give the mass of the particle. That might seem contrived. But at some level it’s OK. It would have been nice if the theory had predicted the masses of the particles. But given that it does not, inserting their values as interaction strengths seems as reasonable as anything. Still, there’s another problem. To get the observed particle masses, the background Higgs field that exists throughout the universe has to have an incredibly high density of energy and mass. Which one might expect would have a huge gravitational effect—in fact, enough of an effect to cause the universe to roll up into a tiny ball. Well, to avoid this, one has to assume that there’s a parameter (a “cosmological constant”) built right into the fundamental equations of gravity that cancels to incredibly high precision the effects of the energy and mass density associated with the background Higgs field. And if this doesn’t seem implausible enough, back around 1980 I was involved in noticing something else: this delicate cancellation can’t survive at the high temperatures of the very early Big Bang universe. And the result is that there has to be a glitch in the expansion of the universe. My calculations said this glitch would not be terribly big—but stretching the theory somewhat led to the possibility of a huge glitch, and in fact an early version of the whole inflationary universe scenario. Back around 1980, it seemed as if unless there was something wrong with the Standard Model it wouldn’t be long before the Higgs particle would show up. The guess was that its mass might be perhaps 10 GeV (about 10 proton masses)—which would allow it to be detected in the current or next generation of particle accelerators. But it didn’t show up. And every time a new particle accelerator was built, there’d be talk about how it would finally find the Higgs. But it never did. Back in 1979 I’d actually worked on questions about what possible masses particles could have in the Standard Model. The instability in the Higgs field used to generate mass ran the risk of making the whole universe unstable. And I found that this would happen if there were quarks with masses above about 300 GeV. This made me really curious about the top quark—which pretty much had to exist, but kept on not being discovered. Until finally in 1995 it showed up—with a mass of 173 GeV, leaving to my mind a surprisingly thin margin away from total instability of the universe. There were a few bounds on the mass of the Higgs particle too. At first they were very loose (“below 1000 GeV” etc.). But gradually they became tighter and tighter. And after huge amounts of experimental and theoretical work, by last year they pretty much said the mass had to be between 110 and 130 GeV. So in a sense one can’t be too surprised about the announcement today of evidence for a Higgs particle with a mass of 126 GeV. But explicitly seeing what appears to be the Higgs particle is an important moment. Which finally seems to tie up a 40-year loose end. At some level I’m actually a little disappointed. I’ve made no secret—even to Peter Higgs—that I’ve never especially liked the Higgs mechanism. It’s always seemed like a hack. And I’ve always hoped that in the end there’d be something more elegant and deep responsible for something as fundamental as the masses of particles. But it appears that nature is just picking what seems like a pedestrian solution to the problem: the Higgs mechanism in the Standard Model. Was it worth spending more than $10 billion to find this out? I definitely think so. Now, what’s actually come out is perhaps not the most exciting thing that could have come out. But there’s absolutely no way one could have been sure of this outcome in advance. Perhaps I’m too used to the modern technology industry where billions of dollars get spent on corporate activities and transactions all the time. But to me spending only $10 billion to get this far in investigating the basic theory of physics seems like quite a bargain. I think it could be justified almost just for the self-esteem of our species: that despite all our specific issues, we’re continuing a path we’ve been on for hundreds of years, systematically making progress in understanding how our universe works. And somehow there’s something ennobling about seeing what’s effectively a worldwide collaboration of people working together in this direction. Indeed, staying up late to watch the announcement early yesterday morning reminded me more than a bit of being a kid in England nearly 43 years ago and staying up late to watch the Apollo 11 landing and moonwalk (which was timed to be at prime time in the US but not Europe). But I have to say that for a world achievement yesterday’s “it’s a 5 sigma effect” was distinctly less dramatic than “the Eagle has landed”. To be fair, a particle physics experiment has a rather different rhythm than a space mission. But I couldn’t help feeling a certain sadness for the lack of pizazz in yesterday’s announcement. Of course, it’s been a long hard road for particle physics these past 30 or so years. Back in the 1950s when particle physics was launched in earnest, there was a certain sense of follow-on and “thank you” for the Manhattan project. And in the 1960s and 1970s the pace of discoveries kept the best and the brightest coming into particle physics. But by the 1980s as particle physics settled into its role as an established academic discipline, there began to be an ever stronger “brain drain”. And by the time the Superconducting Super Collider project was canceled in 1993, it was clear that particle physics had lost its special place in the world of basic research. Personally, I found it sad to watch. Visiting particle physics labs after absences of 20 years, and seeing crumbling infrastructure in what I had remembered as such vibrant places. In a sense it is remarkable and admirable that through all this thousands of particle physicists persisted, and have now brought us (presumably) the Higgs particle. But watching yesterday’s announcement, I couldn’t help feeling that there was a certain sense of resigned exhaustion. I suppose I had hoped for something qualitatively different from those particle physics talks I used to hear 40 years ago. Yes, the particle energies were larger, the detector was bigger, and the data rates were faster. But otherwise it seemed like nothing had changed (well, there also seemed to be a new predilection for statistical ideas like p values). There wasn’t even striking and memorable dynamic imagery of prized particle events, making use of all those modern visualization techniques that people like me have worked so hard to develop. If the Standard Model is correct, yesterday’s announcement is likely to be the last major discovery that could be made in a particle accelerator in our generation. Now, of course, there could be surprises, but it’s not clear how much one should bet on them. So is it still worth building particle accelerators? Whatever happens, there is clearly great value in maintaining the thread of knowledge that exists today about how to do it. But reaching particle energies where without surprises one can reasonably expect to see new phenomena will be immensely challenging. I have thought for years that investing in radically new ideas for particle acceleration (e.g. higher energies for fewer particles) might be the best bet—though it clearly carries risk. Could future discoveries in particle physics immediately give us new inventions or technology? Years ago things like “quark bombs” seemed conceivable. But probably no more. Yes, one can use particle beams for their radiation effects. But I certainly wouldn’t expect to see anything like muonic computers, antiproton engines or neutrino tomography systems anytime soon. Of course, all that may change if somehow it’s figured out (and it doesn’t seem obviously impossible) how to miniaturize a particle accelerator. Over sufficiently long times, basic research has historically tended to be the very best investment one can make. And quite possibly particle physics will be no exception. But I rather expect that the great technological consequences of particle physics will rely more on the development of theory than on more results from experiment. If one figures out how to create energy from the vacuum or transmit information faster than light, it’ll surely be done by applying the theory in new and unexpected ways, rather than by using specific experimental results. The Standard Model is certainly not the end of physics. There are clearly gaps. We don’t know why parameters like particle masses are the way they are. We don’t know how gravity fits in. And we don’t know about all sorts of things seen in cosmology. But let’s say we can resolve all this. What then? Maybe then there’ll be another set of gaps and problems. And maybe in a sense there’ll always be a new layer of physics to discover. I certainly used to assume that. But from my work on A New Kind of Science I developed a different intuition. That in fact there’s no reason all the richness we see in our universe couldn’t arise from some underlying rule—some underlying theory—that’s even quite simple. There are all sorts of things to say about what that rule might be like, and how one might find it. But what’s important here is that if the rule is indeed simple, then on fundamental grounds one shouldn’t in principle need to know too much information to nail down what it is. I’m pleased that in some particular types of very low-level models I’ve studied, I’ve already been able to derive Special and General Relativity, and get some hints of quantum mechanics. But there’s plenty more we know in physics that I haven’t yet been able to reproduce. But what I suspect is that from the experimental results we have, we already know much more than enough to determine what the correct ultimate theory is—assuming that the theory is indeed simple. It won’t be the case that the theory will get the number of dimensions of space and the muon-electron mass ratio right, but will get the Higgs mass or some as-yet-undiscovered detail wrong. Now of course it could be that something new will be discovered that makes it more obvious what the ultimate theory might look like. But my guess is that we don’t fundamentally need more experimental discoveries; we just need to spend more effort and be better at searching for the ultimate theory based on what we already know. And it’s certainly likely to be true that the human and computer resources necessary to take that search a long way will cost vastly less than actual experiments in particle accelerators. And indeed, in the end we may find that the data necessary to nail down the ultimate theory already existed 50 years ago. But we won’t know for sure except in hindsight. And once we have a credible candidate for the final theory it may well suggest new particle accelerator experiments to do. And it will be most embarrassing if by then we have no working particle accelerator on which to carry them out. Particle physics was my first great interest in science. And it is exciting to see now after 40 years a certain degree of closure being reached. And to feel that over the course of that time, at first in particle physics, and later with all the uses of Mathematica, I may have been able to make some small contribution to what has now been achieved. ||||| In confirming what we already thought, the Higgs Boson discovery portends a close to a glorious chapter of particle physics. CERN Experimental physicists around the world are celebrating the discovery of the Higgs boson, which was officially announced yesterday. While many of us are trying to figure out what the Higgs boson is, and whether calling it the God particle is stupid, one of the smartest guys in the world, Stephen Wolfram, is sad. A boy genius who got his CalTech PhD at 20, Wolfram dabbled in particle physics before creating the Mathematica software package, and then WolframAlpha, a "computational engine" that debuted to considerable fanfare a few years ago. In an elegiac blog post, Wolfram notes that the discovery of the Higgs brings a lifetime (his lifetime) of physics research to a close. It confirms the "Standard Model," which is the putative organization of the subatomic universe that scientists have been working on for decades. That might sound like a good thing, but confirming what we already thought was the case actually is actually a lot less interesting than discovering something fundamentally new.

The discovery of the Higgs boson deserves applause—but it also brings a touch of sadness to at least one leading physicist. It's probably "the last major discovery that could be made in a particle accelerator in our generation," writes Stephen Wolfram at his blog. And instead of offering any surprises, the find just confirms what physicists already thought they knew. "I've always hoped that in the end there'd be something more elegant and deep responsible for something as fundamental as the masses of particles," writes Wolfram, who viewed the Higgs model as something akin to a "hack." It's as if "nature is just picking what seems like a pedestrian solution" to fundamental physical questions. The post was spotted by Alexis Madrigal at the Atlantic, who agrees: "Discovering the Higgs boson is a victory for physicists but a sad day for physics."

The Congress has long recognized the value of allowing laboratories to conduct a certain amount of discretionary research. The current LDRD program grew out of legislation enacted in 1977 that authorized the use of a reasonable amount of laboratory funds to conduct employee-suggested, research and development (R&D) projects selected at the discretion of the laboratory directors. DOE’s implementation of its authority to conduct discretionary research evolved over the years. For example, in 1983, DOE Order 5000.1A formally established a discretionary R&D program called Exploratory Research and Development (ER&D); in 1992, DOE Order 5000.4A established the current LDRD program, which includes the previously defined ER&D program and other discretionary work, and further memorialized its long-standing policy of allowing its multi-program national laboratories the discretion to conduct self-initiated, independent R&D; and in 1997, DOE revised its LDRD program direction in DOE Order 413.2 providing clearer guidance on how LDRD funds may and may not be used. Each of DOE’s nine multi-program national laboratories has an LDRD program. Funding for LDRD projects comes from existing program budgets. Historically, this has been accomplished by allowing each laboratory to assess its program’s budgets at a set rate of up to 6 percent and accumulate that money into an overhead account for its LDRD program. DOE’s field offices oversee each laboratory’s LDRD program by approving the laboratory’s spending plans and making sure that projects comply with guidelines. DOE also approves each laboratory’s processes and procedures for selecting, reviewing, and tracking LDRD projects and requires annual reports from each laboratory. DOE conducts periodic reviews of the laboratories’ management that encompass the LDRD program. DOE’s nine multi-program laboratories have invested over $2 billion on LDRD projects since 1992, when the LDRD program was created. DOE’s three large defense laboratories account for a majority of all LDRD spending. Most LDRD funding is invested in research supporting the laboratories’ strategic plans and maintaining the skills and competencies necessary to carry out laboratory missions. In addition, laboratory managers told us they believe that LDRD projects help to attract new scientists and encourage others to explore cutting-edge science projects in order to maintain the “vitality” of the laboratories. The managers believe that LDRD projects also help to identify new mission areas consistent with DOE’s overall mission. As shown in table 1, DOE’s nine multi-program national laboratories have spent over $2 billion on LDRD projects since fiscal year 1992. DOE’s three largest multi-program national laboratories—Lawrence Livermore in California, and Los Alamos and Sandia in New Mexico— account for nearly three-quarters of all LDRD spending. These laboratories concentrate on national security issues and in recent years spent near the maximum amount authorized by the Congress for LDRD projects—no more than 6 percent of their budgets, except for fiscal year 2000 when the Congress limited the amount to 4 percent. By contrast, DOE’s other laboratories generally spend less than 4 percent of their budgets on LDRD projects. (See table 2.) Each of the nine multi-program national laboratories established separate but similar LDRD categories of funding, using these as guides to selecting proposals. The number of categories ranged from one to five. In most laboratories, the largest category contained projects that aligned most closely with the laboratory’s strategic missions, such as the principal missions of national security at the defense laboratories and fundamental science at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. These types of LDRD projects tended to be larger and were expected to have nearer-term results. The second largest category was generally directed at building scientists’ skills and strengthening laboratory competencies. Generally, the laboratories target the smallest amount of funding to projects that are the highest risk and most cutting-edge as shown in the following examples: The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has three main categories of funding. Strategic Initiatives projects represent 27 percent of all LDRD funds, focus on research addressing national needs in support of the laboratory’s strategic vision, and are larger multidisciplinary projects. Exploratory Research projects received 67 percent of the funds, support the strategic vision and competencies building of programs and directorates across the laboratory, and are smaller than the Strategic Initiatives projects. Laboratory-wide projects received about 6 percent of the funds, are designed to encourage creativity of individual scientists in the pursuit of innovative research, and are funded at a maximum of $180,000. A category of funding that receives less than 1 percent of the laboratory’s LDRD funds— Definition and Feasibility Study projects—provides the seeds for new research ideas and are usually funded for less than 6 months and $50,000. The Los Alamos National Laboratory has two categories of LDRD projects. Directed Research projects received about two-thirds of the funds, support the laboratory’s strategic plan, are typically multidisciplinary, and generally cost $1 million or more. Exploratory Research projects received about one-third of LDRD funds, are usually smaller and the most innovative, and generally cost $250,000 or less. The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has three categories for LDRD projects. Laboratory-level projects received about two-thirds of the laboratory’s LDRD funds and are for projects that directly align with the laboratory’s primary research areas, are generally multiyear and multidisciplinary, and cost from $100,000 to $250,000. Division- level projects received about one-third of the LDRD funds, are aimed at developing new ideas in a particular mission area, have intermediate and near-term mission relevance, and cost from $80,000 to $100,000. Level VI projects, which received a total of about $500,000 of the laboratory’s LDRD budget, are intended to support highly innovative ideas, and typically cost less than $60,000 each. DOE and laboratory officials believe that the innovative nature of LDRD projects helps attract new scientists who can contribute to maintaining the vitality of the laboratories. Those officials focusing on national security issues believe that the LDRD program helps attract scientists who can eventually perform national security research work. They believe that because nuclear weapons science is not taught in colleges and must be taught within the defense laboratories, LDRD projects—and the scientists they attract—are vital for national security in the long term. For example, postdoctoral students represent a major source of future research staff at the laboratories, and most of them are hired to work on LDRD projects. Sixty-two percent of Sandia’s postdoctoral staff hired between 1996 and 1999 worked on LDRD projects. DOE’s Laboratory Operations Board, comprising internal managers and external consultants, reported, in January 2000, that LDRD programs are vital in recruiting and retaining the best scientific talent into the laboratories. According to the Board’s report, from 1993 through 1998, 41 percent of LDRD-funded postdoctoral staff at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory—a defense program laboratory—were subsequently hired by the laboratory. Officials from nondefense program laboratories also told us that LDRD projects are important for attracting and maintaining scientific talent in their laboratories. These laboratories, however, spend less on LDRD than defense program laboratories for a number of reasons, including that they conduct more basic science work as a primary mission within their regular programs. All of the randomly selected LDRD projects we reviewed at the five laboratories we visited met DOE’s guidelines for selection. Additionally, DOE’s and the laboratories’ management controls were adequate to reasonably ensure that approved projects would likely meet DOE’s project-selection guidelines. DOE’s guidelines specify that LDRD projects must be in the forefront of science and technology and should include at least one of the following: Advanced study of hypotheses, concepts, or innovative approaches to scientific or technical problems. Experimentation and analyses directed toward “proof of principle” or early determination of the utility of new scientific ideas, technical concepts, or devices. Conception and preliminary technical analyses of experimental facilities or devices. In addition, DOE’s guidelines generally require that LDRD projects should not last longer than 36 months, be supplemented by non-LDRD funds, be used to perform or supplement funding for DOE’s program work, or be used to fund construction for scientific projects beyond the preliminary phase of the research. All LDRD projects we reviewed met DOE’s guidelines. These projects were new projects that were proposed for fiscal year 2000 funding. Most of these projects tested or analyzed a new or untested concept and were consistent with the laboratory’s strategic missions, as shown in the following examples: A Los Alamos project has a goal of advancing the state of fundamental simulation theory so that sophisticated simulation tools can be developed for use in decision-making in complex national security environments, such as critical national infrastructure analysis and military engagements. The project involves developing complex integrated simulation tools that will advance fundamental research in the areas of mathematical foundations of simulation, issues in implementing and computing for large simulations, statistical methods for simulation-based studies, and principles for simulation-based assisted reasoning. The project’s results are primarily targeted to have relevance in mobile communications, regional population mobility and transportation infrastructure, electrical power distribution networks and markets, epidemiological impacts on populations, and threat identification and targeting in urban terrain. In the project’s first year, among other things, demonstrations will focus on mobile telecommunications, transportation systems, and epidemiological impacts. The project is being done under Los Alamos’ Directed Research category and supports the laboratory’s strategic goals in threat reduction, high-performance computing, and modeling and simulation. The project was proposed for 3 years; $600,000 was approved for first-year funding. An Argonne National Laboratory project is designed to fabricate magnetic wires of 20 nanometers (a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter) down to atom scale and study their static and dynamic magnetic properties. This project complements Argonne’s mission in the materials science area and could help define a new research direction for the laboratory. The ultimate goal is to create a new generation of miniaturization in electronics, including memories, transistors, logic elements, and sensors. The physical size of a magnetic system may affect its magnetic properties; this project proposes to study this phenomenon and make major inroads in understanding the fundamental issues of low-dimensional magnetic systems. These issues require a basic understanding of magnetic thin films and multilayers used in computing today as well as a deeper understanding of one- dimensional nanotechnology and synthesis of materials in this environment. The project managers plan to develop samples unprecedented in the study of lower-dimensional systems to better explore fundamental questions about the next-generation magnetism research. This project is being done under Argonne’s category of funding for more innovative projects—the Director’s Competitive Grants Program. The project was proposed for 2 years; $65,000 was approved for first-year funding. A Sandia National Laboratories project aims to develop new scientific tools for addressing the threat of biological terrorism, which is consistent with Sandia’s national security mission. Currently, the ability to initially detect people exposed to a released agent relies on the outward appearance of symptoms, such as lethargy and fever. The goal of this proposed LDRD project is to show that earlier detection, based on cellular-level changes in the body through blood analysis, could be accomplished. The project also aims to develop techniques and models to detect and analyze infection without waiting for external symptoms. The results could reduce disease detection time from days to hours. The development of a rapid, highly sensitive screening mechanism would also have widespread application in the fight against other infectious diseases. This 9-month project costs $100,000 and falls under Sandia’s Development Reserve category, which is used for urgent science and technology needs or technical work related to development of a new program. DOE and laboratory management controls were adequate to reasonably ensure that projects approved would likely meet DOE’s project-selection guidelines. The key controls in place included using DOE’s guidelines to control and conduct the project-selection process, using individuals in the review and selection process with the appropriate skills and knowledge to evaluate the proposed projects, substantially segregating duties among individuals to help ensure that no one individual is likely to control the project-selection decision in a way that will violate LDRD’s guidelines, and ensuring appropriate DOE oversight and review of the results of the process. All laboratories used DOE’s LDRD Order 413.2 as the primary guidance to review and select projects. Individuals involved in the review and selection of the projects had the requisite background and experience to provide credible review. Those individuals had wide-ranging scientific backgrounds—usually a Ph.D. in scientific research and practical experience in basic scientific research. When the subject matter of a project proposal was outside the knowledge base of the review team, the laboratories generally contracted with outside experts to provide reviews and recommendations on the merits of that proposal. In general, each laboratory established review panels comprising individuals from across the laboratory, which provided for diverse opinions to ensure that various points of view were brought to bear on the selection decision. In general, the review panels consisted of managers from directorates having knowledge in the project subject area, other subject matter experts, and managers from the LDRD program. Finally, DOE’s field offices, which are responsible for overseeing each laboratory, annually review the laboratories’ recommendations for projects to be funded and forward recommendations to headquarters for approval. While DOE’s reviews of proposed projects have resulted in clarifications and minor revisions in the proposals’ documentation, those reviews have rarely resulted in not funding proposed projects. All laboratories we reviewed have separate and somewhat different review and selection processes linked to their distinct categories of funding for LDRD projects, but key elements of these processes are very similar. For example, the laboratories we visited initiate their annual LDRD selection process by asking research staff to propose potential projects, called “calls for proposals.” These calls ask for proposals that generally fit into a particular category of funding in the LDRD program. Reviewers for the individual categories of funding review those proposals and either reach consensus or vote outright on where each proposal should be ranked in terms of recommending it for funding. That recommendation is then generally given to the laboratory director, who selects the projects to be funded. The projects recommended for funding are given to DOE’s field offices for review and comment and ultimately forwarded to DOE’s headquarters for approval. The LDRD program could improve its performance reporting. Each laboratory issues an annual LDRD report that includes performance reporting, but those reports do not use a common set of performance indicators. Additionally, the reports present performance information in varying formats, making it difficult to focus on the most relevant performance information. Laboratory managers told us there is no consensus on which performance indicators to use when reporting the results of their LDRD projects, nor is there an agreed upon reporting format. While the reports describe the accomplishments of individual laboratories, taken together, the laboratories’ reports do not provide aggregate performance information that DOE managers and the Congress could use to readily assess the overall value of the program. The different performance indicators reported in each of the laboratories’ annual LDRD reports make it difficult to readily assess overall program performance for DOE’s LDRD program. Table 3 provides a summary of the performance information included in the annual LDRD reports published by the nine multi-program national laboratories in our review and demonstrates the lack of uniformity in reporting the LDRD program’s results across the laboratory complex. In general, the laboratories maintain more detailed performance information than they report in their annual reports, but laboratory officials do not agree on a set of performance indicators that should be reported on for the program. Some pointed out that there is a significant difference between different types of publications. Refereed publications, for example, must go through an expert review process before they can be published. Also, certain publications have higher levels of difficulty and achievement and, therefore, significance. The same issue surrounds the tabulation of awards as performance indicators. Likewise, symposia, as well as other potential measures, carry different degrees of significance. Many suggested that success stories are the best measures of a project’s performance, particularly for basic research whose ultimate value may not be evident for a long time. Furthermore, they told us that projects viewed as unsuccessful with respect to their direct proposed goals might in fact have answered critical questions that paved the way for major breakthroughs in science. In addition, we found that differences in how performance information is presented in the laboratories’ annual LDRD reports also make it more difficult to assess the overall value of the program. As indicated in table 3, we found that while some laboratories present performance information for individual projects, other laboratories present performance information in a summary fashion. Two contrasting performance-reporting styles can be found in Sandia National Laboratories’ and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s annual LDRD reports. Sandia’s report provides an appendix entitled “Project Performance Measures,” which lists LDRD projects and catalogues outputs of the projects using 11 quantitative performance indicators and several qualitative indicators. In contrast, Lawrence Livermore’s LDRD report provides an appendix listing publications resulting from individual LDRD projects and describes—in summary format rather than on a project-by-project basis—several other quantitative performance indicators, including patents, awards, and permanent staff hired. While the laboratories’ annual LDRD reports describe the accomplishments of individual laboratories, taken together, the laboratories’ reports do not provide aggregate performance information that DOE managers and the Congress could use to readily assess the overall value of the program. Aggregate, more-uniform performance reporting on the LDRD program could aid DOE managers, the Congress, and others in their oversight of the program. In general, LDRD project-selection and review processes in place at DOE’s multi-program national laboratories are adequate to reasonably ensure compliance with DOE’s project-selection guidelines. Our review of randomly selected LDRD projects at laboratories found that they met DOE’s guidelines. However, our observations of the performance- reporting practices for the LDRD program lead us to conclude that performance reporting for the program could improve. By reporting aggregate, more-uniform performance information for the LDRD program as a whole, DOE managers and the Congress could more readily assess the overall value of the program. To improve the Congress’s ability to make informed decisions on the value of the LDRD program, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy develop and annually report aggregate, more-uniform performance information for the LDRD program. This recommendation will require DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration and the Office of Science, which are both accountable for laboratory performance, to work together and develop performance indicators that can be used to demonstrate accomplishments across all the laboratories. We provided a draft of this report to DOE for review and comment. According to representatives of the Office of Science responsible for the LDRD program, DOE agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendation. DOE also provided a number of clarifying comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate, in this report. As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 15 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Energy and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others on request. To determine how much the Department of Energy’s (DOE) multi-program national laboratories have spent on Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) projects since 1992 (when the LDRD program was created), we reviewed program information, including annual reports, budgets and other financial information provided by DOE and laboratory officials for the nine DOE multi-program national laboratories. These laboratories are Argonne National Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories. Although DOE’s Ames Laboratory has a LDRD program, we excluded it from our review because Ames is not a multi-program national laboratory. To determine if LDRD projects met DOE’s selection guidelines, we reviewed the procedures and processes for selecting LDRD projects at all nine of DOE’s multi-program national laboratories. We also tested the internal controls for project selection at five of those laboratories and the respective DOE offices responsible for oversight of the program, and randomly selected approved LDRD projects at those five laboratories. The five laboratories were Argonne National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories. These laboratories include three of the largest multi-program national laboratories and represent 83 percent of DOE’s LDRD expenditures for the period reviewed. We also interviewed DOE’s field office officials responsible for the oversight of the program in the Albuquerque, Chicago, Idaho, and Oakland Operations offices. In addition, we interviewed officials responsible for the LDRD program in DOE’s headquarters Office of Science, Office of Defense Programs, and Office of Environmental Management. To test the internal controls of the program, we evaluated the processes and procedures used to select LDRD projects. The internal control tests were designed to determine if adequate management control was built into the LDRD program to provide reasonable assurance that projects approved through the program comply with DOE’s guidelines for the LDRD program. We performed the internal control tests by examining the processes and procedures to ensure that the (1) people involved in the selection of the LDRD projects used the same guidance and selection criteria, (2) individuals involved in the selection of the projects had the appropriate skills and knowledge to evaluate the proposed projects, (3) duties in the project-selection process were segregated substantially among individuals so that no one individual would be likely to control the project-selection decision in a way that would violate LDRD guidelines, and (4) DOE oversight activities were adequate. To accomplish this, we obtained from the respective DOE officials and laboratory management officials, documentation and interview information on guidance provided to the LDRD project review and selection personnel on how to select LDRD projects for funding at each laboratory. We then obtained documentation on the LDRD processes and procedures for reviewing and selecting projects for funding at each of the five laboratories. This information included documentation on how proposed projects originate to final selections or other dispositions. We obtained documentation and interview information on which individuals participate in each phase of the process, their roles, and their backgrounds. Using random number tables, we selected five projects from each of the five selected multi-program national laboratories’ projects approved for funding for fiscal year 2000— a total of 25 projects. Because each laboratory had more than one category of LDRD funding and to enable us to review projects within each of those categories, we randomly selected at least one project from each category of funding at each laboratory. We determined if each selected project met DOE’s project-selection guidelines and, to complement our internal control tests, we examined the elements of the processes, qualifications of reviewers, segregation of duties, and DOE’s oversight. For each of these projects, we reviewed the project proposal files, including documentation reflecting individual reviewers’ recommendations on the disposition of each case. We also interviewed the scientists who proposed each project and the laboratory officials responsible for reviewing the projects for selection to better understand the technical nature of the research and how that research meets DOE’s guidelines for LDRD projects. Interviews with selection officials also focused on determining if individuals involved in the selection of the projects had the appropriate skills and knowledge to evaluate the proposed projects and if the duties in the process were segregated so that no one individual would be likely to control the project-selection decision in a way that would violate LDRD’s criteria. We also interviewed DOE officials in headquarters and the field offices involved in the oversight process through which the projects were selected. While we cannot project the results of our analysis of LDRD projects to the universe of those projects, our analysis provides a snapshot of how internal controls were being applied, and additional confidence, at the five selected laboratories, in the results of our internal control testing overall. To provide views on how the program might be improved, we relied on observations obtained throughout the course of our audit work. We provided a draft of this report to DOE for review and comment. According to representatives of the Office of Science responsible for the LDRD program, DOE agreed with our findings, conclusions, and recommendation. DOE also provided a number of clarifying comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate, in this report. Our review was performed from December 1999 through September 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

The Department of Energy (DOE) created the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program in fiscal year 1992. This program formalized a long-standing policy of giving its multi-program national laboratories discretion to conduct self-initiated, independent research and development (R&D). Since then, DOE's multi-program national laboratories have spent more than $2 billion on LDRD projects. DOE's three largest multi-program national laboratories account for nearly three-quarters of laboratory-wide LDRD spending. All LDRD projects GAO reviewed at the five laboratories met DOE's guidelines for selection. In addition, each of the five laboratories created the internal controls necessary to reasonably ensure compliance with DOE's guidelines. Each laboratory issues annual LDRD reports that contain performance indicators, such as the numbers of patents obtained, publications, copyrights, awards, and relevance of the research to DOE's missions. The reports present performance information in various formats, making it difficult to focus on the most relevant performance information.

A patent is a grant given by a government to an inventor of the right to exclude others for a limited time from making, using, or selling his or her invention. In the United States, the sole granting authority for patents is PTO. While other countries throughout the world have patent offices of their own, the two largest counterparts to PTO are the patent offices in Japan and Europe. Within PTO, the patent application examination process consists of several progressive phases. An applicant files a patent application with PTO, where it is subjected to reviews for accuracy and completeness during a preexamination phase. Following preexamination, the application is assigned, or “docketed,” to an examiner within an examination group that has expertise in a specific field, such as computer systems or biotechnology. At this point, the examiner begins the process of determining whether the invention is a new and useful process or product that should receive a patent. Usually early in the process, the examiner makes a preliminary decision, or “first action,” which may then be followed by a series of contacts with the applicant to resolve questions and/or obtain additional information. Possibly after a number of actions by the examiner, PTO will decide whether to issue a patent. If PTO decides to issue a patent, termed an “allowance,” then the agency informs the applicant and, upon the payment of the necessary fees, issues a patent. The application may be abandoned during any of these stages. PTO defines pendency as the period from the date when an application is filed until the date when a patent is issued or the application is abandoned. PTO computes average pendency as the total number of months of examination for all patents issued or applications abandoned over a particular period, divided by the total number of applications for that period. As reported by PTO, average pendency varied over the period from fiscal year 1981 through fiscal 1995, peaking at 25.5 months in fiscal year 1983 and reaching a low point of 18.2 months at the end of fiscal year 1991. Since fiscal year 1991, pendency has averaged at least 19 months in each fiscal year. For our May 22, 1996, report, we developed statistics for patents issued or applications abandoned during fiscal year 1994 as well as patents still in-process as of October 1, 1994. We selected fiscal year 1994 because it was the last full fiscal year prior to the change in the patent term law and the last full fiscal year for which complete data were available. In addition, October 1, 1994, was chosen because it provided us with the most recent data available for comparison with data from fiscal year 1994 without including any of the same applications. As a baseline for our analyses, we first computed the overall average pendency for patents issued and applications abandoned during fiscal year 1994. In this regard, we computed an overall average pendency rate of 20.2 months for fiscal year 1994 instead of the 19 months reported by PTO. This variation appears to result from a combination of three factors. First, PTO computed pendency on a quarterly basis, and the 19-month rate reported is the pendency rate for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1994. Second, unlike PTO, we included design patents. Third, PTO’s automated database continued to be updated between the time when PTO made its computation and when we made ours. PTO officials agreed that these factors accounted for the difference in the computations of pendency for fiscal year 1994. While the difference is slight, we nevertheless believe our computation to be more accurate and complete and used our computed rate of 20.2 months for subsequent analyses and comparisons. The overall average pendency rate computed and reported by PTO does not provide inventors and decisionmakers such as the Congress and the administration with the information they now need to determine the effect of pendency on the patent term and to evaluate PTO’s performance. This is because (1) PTO’s pendency computation method considers both issued patents and abandoned applications but does not consider applications still in-process; (2) pendency can vary widely for individual applications, depending on the type of invention and factors such as whether the application is subject to a secrecy order; (3) pendency is higher when the filing date used is that of the original, rather than the most recent, application for the particular invention; and (4) the applicants themselves are partly responsible for the time taken to examine applications. Pendency is an important factor in any consideration of the patent examination process because it provides (1) the inventor with an estimate of how long PTO is likely to take to issue a patent, (2) PTO with information on how it is managing its workload, and (3) decisionmakers such as the Congress and the administration with a method to measure results. However, we believe that the overall average pendency reported by PTO does not provide inventors and decisionmakers with the information they need because it does not show separate computations for patents issued, applications abandoned, and applications still in-process. Pendency has taken on a new importance to inventors over the past year because, in most cases, the time taken to examine a patent will in effect reduce that portion of the 20-year term in which the invention can be commercialized. The important measurement is pendency for issued patents because it reflects the examination time for the successful applications that have completed the examination process. As shown in table II.1 in appendix II, the pendency for the 113,684 patents issued during fiscal year 1994 was 21.3 months, which is 1.1 months higher than the overall pendency for both issued patents and abandoned applications. Pendency for abandoned applications is also important. While such applications may have limited importance to the inventor, they are important to PTO because they represent a substantial portion of PTO’s overall workload. As shown in table II.1, 73,949 applications were abandoned during fiscal year 1994; their average pendency was 18.3 months. Thus, PTO spends a considerable amount of time examining or awaiting responses on applications that will not result in the issuance of a patent. Pendency as reported by PTO also excludes applications that have been filed but not yet issued or abandoned. At any one time, the number of applications in-process is greater than the number of patents issued or applications abandoned during the previous fiscal year. As of October 1, 1994, 294,565 applications were still in some phase of examination; their average age was 16 months. Of these, 14.8 percent were more than 2 years old, 5.2 percent were more than 3 years old, and 2.7 percent were more than 4 years old. In responding to the results of our analyses, PTO performed its own analysis of work in-process as of October 1, 1994. PTO officials said that their findings were consistent with ours but that their analysis went further in explaining some of the reasons for the older applications. While we did not verify their statistics, the PTO officials said that of those applications that were more than 2 years old, 55 percent had experienced delays because of factors—such as those created by secrecy orders and applicant appeals—beyond PTO’s control. Of those applications more than 4 years old, 82 percent were said to have experienced delays beyond PTO’s control. Patent applications cover a broad range of inventions. To determine whether pendency varies by the type of invention being examined and other factors, we compared pendency in fiscal year 1994 for individual examination groups, applications subject to secrecy orders, and foreign applications. We found that (1) pendency can vary significantly among the examination groups, (2) applications subject to secrecy orders have high pendency themselves but little effect on overall pendency because of their limited number, and (3) pendency for applications from foreign residents is only slightly higher than for all applications. One of the functions of preexamining an application is to determine the examination group within PTO to which the application should be assigned. Each examination group specializes in a broad type of application and is divided into “art units” that have greater degrees of specialization. We found that the type of invention being examined can have a significant effect on pendency. As shown in table II.2, overall average pendency during fiscal year 1994 was highest—at 27.6 months—in the Computer Systems group and lowest—at 16.9 months—in the Solar, Heat, Power, and Fluid Engineering Devices group. As shown in tables II.3 and II.4, these same two examination groups also had the highest and lowest pendency rates for issued patents (29 months for the former compared with 17.8 months for the latter) and abandoned applications (26 months for the former compared with 14.1 months for the latter). The differences by invention type are even more visible when comparisons are made among the nearly 200 individual art units. Again using the data from fiscal year 1994, for example, we found that the 550 patents issued or applications abandoned in Art Unit 2307—Data Base and File Management Systems—had an average pendency of 34.2 months compared with an average pendency of 15.6 months for the 1,426 patents issued or applications abandoned in Art Unit 2404—Special Receptacles or Packages, Shoes and Shoe Making. Comparisons at this level are more difficult, according to PTO officials, because of the frequent shifts that PTO makes in the scope of inventions covered by individual art units and because the number of applications can vary so widely among the units. Nevertheless, PTO officials agree that pendency varies widely among the art units. Patent applications subject to secrecy orders are assigned to a separate examination group. PTO will not issue a patent or permit an abandonment on an application while it is subject to a secrecy order; thus, such applications technically remain under examination until the secrecy order is lifted. As shown in table II.5, applications subject to secrecy orders have a higher pendency but have little effect on overall pendency because they are relatively few in number. Only 464 patents issued or applications abandoned during fiscal year 1994 had at one time been subject to secrecy orders. Pendency for these was higher than the norm, averaging 62.9 months in total, 67.5 months for issued patents, and 51.6 months for abandoned applications. However, such applications raised overall pendency for fiscal year 1994 by only 0.1 month. As of October 1, 1994, PTO had 3,653 applications still in-process that were or at one time had been subject to secrecy orders. The pendency for these applications ranged from 2.2 to 189.3 months and averaged 86.2 months. PTO considers a patent application to have originated in a foreign country if the first applicant named in the application is a foreign resident. As shown in table II.6, we compared the average pendency for foreign applicants with pendency for all patents issued or applications abandoned during fiscal year 1994. Overall, the average pendency for foreign applications—which accounted for 36.8 percent of all patents issued or applications abandoned—was 20.9 months, compared with 20.2 months for all applications. Foreign patents that were issued had a pendency of 21.9 months, compared with 21.3 months for all patents issued. Foreign applications that were abandoned had a pendency of 19.2 months, compared with 18.3 months for all applications abandoned. According to PTO officials, a patent application may spawn other applications during the examination period. This can be done through a “division,” whereby the application is split after PTO determines that it contains more than one invention, or through a “continuation,” whereby the applicant has chosen to continue prosecution of the same invention described and claimed in the original application. The new, or current, application is referred to by PTO as the “child,” and the earlier application is referred to as the “parent.” Several generations of applications are possible from one invention. PTO officials also told us that in calculating pendency, PTO uses the date when each new application is filed. This practice is consistent with PTO’s primary use of the pendency statistics as internal workload measurement tools. Also, the filing date for measuring pendency was of less importance under the old law, since a patent term did not begin until the patent was issued. Under the new law, the patent will be effective when issued, but the term for most patents will be measured from the earliest filing date relating to the particular invention. This change will affect only those utility and plant applications filed after June 7, 1995. However, to determine what pendency would have been if the application filing date for the parent had been used, we recalculated overall pendency for both the patents issued and applications abandoned during fiscal year 1994 and applications in-process as of October 1, 1994. As shown in table II.7, 49,686, or 26.5 percent, of the patents issued or applications abandoned during fiscal year 1994 had a parent application. Using the application date of the parent instead of the current application date, we found that average pendency would have been 28 months instead of 20.2 months overall, 28 months instead of 21.3 months for issued patents, and 28.1 months instead of 18.3 months for abandoned applications. As of October 1, 1994, 87,437, or 29.7 percent, of the applications still in-process had parent applications. Using the filing date for the parent rather than the filing date for the current application would raise the average pendency for all applications still in-process from 16 months to 25 months. If only those patents and applications that had a parent were considered, the difference in pendency is even more pronounced. As also shown in table II.7, the 49,686 patents issued and applications abandoned during fiscal year 1994 that were the children of earlier applications had an average pendency of 17.9 months if the current application filing date were used and 47.7 months if the application filing date for the parent were used. If the parent application filing date were used instead of the current application filing date, the average pendency would have been 46.9 months instead of 19.4 months for issued patents and 48.5 months instead of 16.1 months for abandoned applications. Likewise, those applications still under examination as of October 1, 1994, would have had an average pendency of 45 months rather than 14.6 months. In many cases, PTO cannot complete the examination until the applicant has taken some further action. For example, (1) the applicant may have filed an incomplete application that must be corrected before it can be assigned to an examination group, (2) the applicant may need to answer questions raised by the examiner or provide PTO with additional information, or (3) PTO may have to wait for the payment of a fee before it can proceed with the examination process. We could not determine precisely how much pendency is attributable overall to the applicant, since PTO’s automated system does not retain information on each contact with the applicant. However, we did calculate the elapsed time between certain applicants’ responses to official actions by PTO, using data that PTO maintains on such responses and includes in its own automated reports. During PTO’s examination, the examiner makes a preliminary decision on the merits of the application as filed. At such time, the examiner may ask the applicant to respond to questions or provide the examiner with information. This process may occur a number of times. For patents issued or applications abandoned during fiscal year 1994, we compared the dates between PTO’s actions and the applicants’ responses for the first three such responses recorded on the subject applications. Of the 187,633 patents issued and applications abandoned during fiscal year 1994, the applicants had provided examiners with responses at least once for 125,949 applications, at least twice for 36,887 applications, and at least thrice for 7,955 applications. As shown in table II.8, the need for applicants’ responses added to the time that applications were pending. The filers’ response time added 3.6 months to the overall average pendency, 3.7 months to the average pendency for issued patents, and 3.4 months to the average pendency for abandoned applications. Thus, the average pendency without these response times would have been 16.6 months instead of 20.2 months overall, 17.6 months instead of 21.3 months for issued patents, and 14.9 months instead of 18.3 months for abandoned applications. PTO officials said that the portion of pendency attributable to the applicant actually is much higher than the average response times that we computed because the applicant can create delays at other times throughout the examination process. Subsequent to our analyses, PTO performed its own analysis of the fiscal year 1994 database and identified an additional average of 3.8 months due to applicant delays. While we did not verify the accuracy of PTO’s computations, we note that adding the additional 3.8 months from PTO’s analysis to the 3.6 months that we computed for applicants’ responses alone would result in about 7.4 months, or 36.6 percent, of the 20.2-month average pendency for fiscal year 1994 being attributable to the applicants themselves. PTO’s resources are committed to four broad functions—examining patent applications, examining trademark applications, disseminating information, and providing overall direction and administration for the agency. In fiscal year 1995, PTO committed about three-fourths of its funding and staff to the patent process. PTO’s annual obligations have increased steadily in recent years. In the 10-year period from fiscal year 1986 through fiscal 1995, PTO’s annual obligations increased from about $212 million to $589 million, an average annual increase of nearly 20 percent. Table III.1 in appendix III subdivides these obligations by amounts allocated to the patent process, the trademark process, executive direction and administration, and information dissemination. While the patent process consistently accounted for the majority of the obligations, spending for the other three functions also increased over the 10-year period. The patent process accounted for 56.6 to 75.4 percent of the obligations in individual years, while the range was 5.4 to 8.5 percent for the trademark process, 6.4 to 20.2 percent for executive direction and administration, and 9.9 to 18.5 percent for information dissemination. To illustrate another measure of the commitment of resources to the patent process, we compared staffing levels in the four functions. Table III.2 compares the full-time equivalent (FTE) staff assigned to the patent process, the trademark process, executive direction and administration, and information dissemination over the same 10-year period. As with obligations, the majority of PTO staff was committed to the patent process; the percentage ranged from 58 to 75.1 percent of total staffing in individual years. During these same years, the trademark process accounted for 6.8 to 9.7 percent of total staff, executive direction and administration for 7.1 to 15.4 percent, and information dissemination for 8.0 to 22.4 percent. According to PTO officials, precise comparisons among the functions for different years is difficult, because of changes PTO has made in how it allocates obligations and staff among major functions. In fiscal year 1990, for example, PTO began including all obligations for facilities under executive direction and administration; previously, the obligations had been allocated among the four functions. Conversely, in fiscal year 1991, PTO began allocating obligations for automation among the four functions; previously, these obligations had been assigned to executive direction and administration. In fiscal years 1992, 1994, and 1995, PTO underwent significant reorganizations and transfers of both obligations and FTE staff among functions. To compare resource commitments in the patent process with changes in patent pendency, we compared statistics on four patent workload indicators—the number of applications, number of patents issued, number of patents pending prior to PTO’s decision to issue a patent (termed an “allowance”), and average pendency in months for the same 10-year period as above. As shown in table III.3, PTO’s workload increased significantly from fiscal year 1986 through fiscal 1995; applications increased in each year, and patents pending prior to allowance increased in 8 of the 10 years. The largest increases in each of these categories were during fiscal year 1995 and, according to PTO officials, resulted from the flood of applications filed immediately prior to the new patent term for applications filed after June 7, 1995. The number of patents issued annually generally increased over the 10-year period, even though there was a wide variation in individual years. A lesser fluctuation occurred in the reported pendency rate, which varied from 18.2 to 22 months over the period. Overall, PTO’s published reports indicate that the agency reduced pendency by 2.9 months from fiscal year 1986 through fiscal 1995. The three primary granting authorities for patents in the world are PTO, the Japanese Patent Office, and the European Patent Office formed by the Contracting States of the European Patent Convention. The only statistics on foreign patent offices that we have obtained are those included in the Trilateral Statistical Report, which is an annual compilation of unverified statistics made available by PTO, the Japanese Patent Office, the European Patent Office, and the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, Switzerland. As shown in the most recent report and in table IV.1 in appendix IV, the patent offices in the United States, Japan, and Europe had granted 3.1 million, or 80.5 percent, of the 3.9 million patents in force around the world at the end of calendar year 1993. PTO, the Japanese Patent Office, and the European Patent Office have similar objectives in examining patent applications. Each of the three offices will examine a filed patent application on the basis of inventive novelty and industrial applicability. Figure IV.1 compares patent examination processes in each of the three offices. While PTO, Europe, and Japan have similar procedures for examining and granting patents, there are important differences as shown below: PTO’s examination process is unified—the filing of an application is considered to be a request for substantive examination as well as a request for a search for inventive novelty. Thus, examination commences on the date when the patent is filed and continues until the patent is issued or the application is abandoned. The examination process in the Japanese Patent Office is also unified. An examination consists of both a search for novelty and a substantive examination for industrial applicability. Unlike PTO, however, an application in the Japanese Patent Office is not considered a request for examination. Rather, the applicant must make a separate request for examination, which may come at any time up to 7 years after the application is filed. If a request for examination is not made within the 7-year period, the application is considered withdrawn. In the European Patent Office, examination is a two-phase process. A filing with the European Patent Office is taken to imply a request for a search to determine whether the invention is new compared with the state of the art. If an applicant then desires a substantive examination for industrial applicability, the applicant must file a separate request not more than 6 months after the publication of the search. If a request for examination is not made within the 6-month period, the application is considered withdrawn. Table IV.2 shows 1992-94 examination pendency statistics reported by PTO, the Japanese Patent Office, and the European Patent Office. While these statistics appear to indicate that pendency is lower in PTO than in either the Japanese or European offices, actual comparisons cannot be made because of differences in both examination procedures and pendency calculations. The differences in the procedures followed by the three patent offices create differences in what is being measured in the pendency statistics. The Japanese Patent Office, for example, had 2.13 million applications in 1994 awaiting a request for examination. This was more than five times the 397,322 applications actually under examination. During the same year, the European Patent Office had 44,300 applications undergoing searches and 12,600 applications awaiting a request for examination in addition to the 126,700 applications actually undergoing examination. Under PTO’s procedures, all of the applications filed in the other two offices would have been considered under examination. The three offices also differ in the way they compute pendency. Under PTO’s procedure, pendency is the average number of months from the filing of the application to either the issuance of a patent or the abandonment of the application and does not include applications still under examination. In both the Japanese Patent Office and the European Patent Office, examination pendency is determined by dividing the number of pending applications in examination at the end of the reporting year by the number of disposals (decision to grant, withdraw, refuse, abandon, or convert) during the reporting year and multiplying by 12. These different computation methods would yield fundamentally different results between the patent offices in the United States, Japan, and Europe. Consequently, caution should be exercised in comparing workloads and pendency between these offices. Another difference in the computations is the filing date used for individual applications. As discussed earlier, an application submitted to PTO ultimately may spawn one or more “child” applications. In determining pendency, each of these applications is considered separately; the filing date of the child is considered rather than that of the parent application. PTO officials told us that while the Japanese Patent Office and the European Patent Office have provisions for divisions, they do not have continuation applications as does PTO. Given the current law, which starts the term of most patents when the original application for an invention is filed, patent pendency is likely to become a more important concern to those outside PTO in the future. In this regard, pendency statistics would be more useful to inventors and decisionmakers if pendency were differentiated in terms of issued patents, abandoned applications, and applications in-process. Statistics on patents by examination group would also be more useful to inventors in particular fields. Computing pendency statistics from the original as well as the most recent application filing dates would be consistent with the change in the law and would provide for a better estimate of how much of the patent term is likely to be devoted to examination. In addition, modifying the automated system to allow accumulation and reporting of pendency time attributable to the filer would enhance PTO’s future efforts to reduce or manage pendency. PTO’s funding and staffing have increased in recent years, and PTO has consistently committed the majority of these resources to the patent process. In fiscal year 1995, the patent process accounted for about three-fourths of both funding and staffing. Finally, despite similarities, there are fundamental differences in the procedures for examining patent applications in the United States, Japan, and Europe. Also, there appear to be differences in the methods for computing and reporting pendency. For these reasons, caution should be exercised in comparing workloads and pendency between these offices. To improve the information on patent pendency for use by applicants, PTO, and decisionmakers, we recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to compute and report patent pendency statistics that will separately identify issued patents, abandoned applications, and applications still under examination. These statistics should (1) be further divided by examination group, (2) allow for comparisons of pendency using both the original and most recent application filing dates, and (3) separate the examination time attributable to both PTO and the applicant. We transmitted a draft of this report to the Department of Commerce for its review and comment. Generally, the Department agreed that more meaningful pendency statistics are needed but did not agree that the current methods for measuring and reporting pendency should be used as a baseline. In commenting on our recommendations, the Department believed that more was needed than just an expansion of the pendency statistics now in use. It said that by fiscal year 2003, PTO’s goal is to complete the examination of each new patent application within 12 months—discounting waiting time caused by the applicant. Therefore, the Department believes that PTO’s reported statistics will need to reflect the average examination time per invention and the percentage of patent applications that have attained the 12-month goal. The Department said that until these new procedures can be implemented, PTO will continue to report pendency as it had in the past. We agree with PTO’s identified need to track and report pendency when its new examination policy is put into effect. However, because this new policy (1) may not be in effect for several years and (2) is dependent on a redesign of PTO’s monitoring and tracking systems, PTO needs to begin reporting pendency statistics in the interim as we recommended. Also, our recommendations should be considered in planning and implementing any new pendency reporting system. The Department also provided us with some clarifying information on its views concerning the effect of pendency on the patent term, pendency reporting by art units, and use of the original application filing date to compute pendency. The full text of the Department’s written comments and our evaluation appear in appendix V. Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 3 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate House and Senate committees, interested Members of Congress; the Secretary of Commerce; the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will make copies available to others upon request. This report was prepared under the direction of Allen Li, Associate Director of Energy, Resources, and Science Issues, who may be reached at (202) 512-3600 if you or your staff have questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. On February 26, 1996, the Chairman, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, requested that we provide him with information on a number of intellectual property issues affecting the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and the Copyright Office. In discussions with the Committee’s staff, we agreed to provide the Chairman with a report covering only those issues affecting PTO. These issues include an analysis of patent pendency; a comparative summary of recent resource allocations within PTO, particularly in regard to the patent process; and a comparison of patent examination processes and pendency between PTO and the patent offices in Japan and Europe. The information requested on the Copyright Office was included in our testimony before the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress on May 7, 1996. We provided the Committee with a copy of our testimony, entitled Library of Congress: Opportunities to Improve General and Financial Management (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-96-115) and related documents. To provide the Chairman with the information on patent pendency, we built on the information we recently included in a report to Representative Dana Rohrabacher entitled Patent Examination Statistics (GAO/RCED-96-152R, May 22, 1996). In our analysis, we relied on data reported through PTO’s automated Patent Application Location and Monitoring (PALM) system to develop statistics on patent pendency. This system contains background information on each patent application, as well as a “prosecution history” that shows the date when key actions were taken on each application during examination. To determine pendency, we first analyzed the periodic reports that PTO produces from the PALM system. While these reports were useful in learning how the examination process works and what data were available from the automated system, they did not allow us to compare pendency over a full fiscal year for the individual categories of issued patents, abandoned applications, and applications still in-process. For this reason, we performed our own analysis of the automated data. We asked PTO to provide us with certain background information and prosecution histories from the PALM system for (1) all patents issued and applications abandoned during fiscal year 1994 and (2) all applications that had been filed but neither issued nor abandoned as of October 1, 1994. We chose fiscal year 1994 because it was the last fiscal year for which complete data were available at the time of our request in October 1995 and because it was the last full year under the old patent term law. We chose October 1, 1994, because it would give us a “snapshot” of pendency at one particular point and because it was the first day after the end of fiscal year 1994. While the data for our two analyses would be in close proximity, there would be no overlapping files from the automated system. We designed our own automated program for analyzing PTO’s data. In this regard, we obtained the file layouts for one of PTO’s own automated reports (PALM 3515) and held discussions with PTO officials familiar with the PALM system to ensure that we were using the same data fields to extract information by examination phases, examination groups, types of applications, secrecy orders, foreign applications, et cetera. We then extracted data and computed the number of applications, the average pendency, and the pendency range for the various subsets of information shown in the tables in appendix II of this report. Our analyses of pendency are based on PTO’s own data. We did not independently verify or validate the PALM system or the data we extracted from the system. We did, however, discuss with officials in PTO’s Search and Information Resources Administration office the layout of the PALM system, the manner by which information is added to the system, and our plans for extracting, collating, and analyzing the data we obtained from the system. We also discussed the results of our analysis of pendency with officials in PTO’s Assistant Commissioner for Patents office, Comptroller office, and Office of the Chief Information Officer. Where possible, we compared aggregate data with data produced by PTO in other reports and discussed with PTO officials the potential reasons for any discrepancies. In limited cases, the application files that we obtained from the automated system did not include usable information in particular fields. In those cases, we deleted the particular application from the computation we were making using such data fields. Thus, the tables in appendix II may show different numbers of applications for different subsets of data within the same table. For the information on PTO’s resource allocations, we obtained information from PTO’s budget submissions and related documents for fiscal years 1986 through 1995. We supplemented these with discussions with PTO officials. We did not independently verify the statistics. For the information comparing PTO with its counterpart patent offices in Japan and Europe, we used the Trilateral Statistical Reports published as a joint effort by the three agencies for calendar years 1993 and 1994. We supplemented these with discussions with PTO officials and attorneys specializing in international patent issues. We did not independently verify the information obtained. We conducted our review from February 1996 through June 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Table II.2: Patent Pendency by Examination Group for Patents Issued or Applications Abandoned During Fiscal Year 1994 General, metallurgical, inorganic, petroleum and electrical chemistry and engineering Organic chemistry drug, etc. Specialized chemical industries, etc. High polymer chemistry, plastics, coating, photography, etc. Industrial electronics, physics, etc. Computer systems, etc. Packages, cleaning, textiles, and geometrical instruments Electronic/optical systems, etc. Communications, measuring, testing and lamp/discharge group Material shaping, tools, etc. Medical technology, sporting goods, etc. Table II.3: Patent Pendency by Examination Group for Patents Issued During Fiscal Year 1994 General, metallurgical, inorganic, petroleum and electrical chemistry and engineering Organic chemistry drug, etc. Specialized chemical industries, etc. High polymer chemistry, plastics, coating, photography, etc. Industrial electronics, physics, etc. Computer systems, etc. Packages, cleaning, textiles, and geometrical instruments Electronic/optical systems, etc. Communications, measuring, testing and lamp/discharge group Material shaping, tools, etc. Medical technology, sporting goods, etc. Table II.4: Patent Pendency by Examination Group for Applications Abandoned During Fiscal Year 1994 General, metallurgical, inorganic, petroleum and electrical chemistry and engineering Organic chemistry drug, etc. Specialized chemical industries, etc. High polymer chemistry, plastics, coating, photography, etc. Industrial electronics, physics, etc. Computer systems, etc. Packages, cleaning, textiles, and geometrical instruments Electronic/optical systems, etc. Communications, measuring, testing and lamp/discharge group Material shaping, tools, etc. Medical technology, sporting goods, etc. According to PTO officials, major reorganizations and transfers of funds among functions took place in fiscal years 1992, 1994, and 1995. According to PTO officials, major reorganizations and transfers of FTE staff among functions took place in fiscal years 1992, 1994, and 1995. Annual change (percent) Annual change (percent) Annual change (percent) The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Commerce’s letter dated June 21, 1996. 1. The intent of our statement was not to contrast the average patent term after the change in the law but rather to show the effect that pendency would have on the term. Since the patent term on utility and plant patents will begin when the original application is filed, any pendency will reduce the 20-year term. Prior to the change in the law, pendency did not affect the term, which ran for 17 years from the date when the patent was issued. 2. We agree that the effective term of the patent for most inventors will be greater under the new law if PTO issues the patent in less than 3 years from the original filing date. However, as shown in table II.7, well over one-fourth of the patents and applications in our analysis had a parent application, and the pendency on these averaged at least 45 months when measured from the parent filing date. 3. Our report recognizes that developing meaningful pendency statistics at the art unit level is difficult because of the frequent shifts that PTO makes in the scope of work within individual units as well as the wide variation in workload among the units. For this reason, we are not recommending that PTO report pendency by art unit. Instead, we are recommending that statistics be reported at the broader examination group level. 4. We did not evaluate PTO’s plans to begin measuring pendency by cycle time per invention because these plans were still in a developmental phase at the time of our work. We agree that PTO needs to be able to measure and report the time that the agency itself spends in examining an application. However, as discussed in our report, the amount of time attributable to applicant delays is significant. Thus, as we recommended, PTO needs to compute and report pendency time attributable to both PTO and the applicant, regardless of the pendency measurement system used. 5. We agree that abandonments are not totally within the control of PTO and that reporting average pendency is important. However, as we recommended, PTO also needs to show separate statistics for issued patents and abandoned applications because (1) statistics on issued patents are an important indicator of pendency for the inventor wanting to know how long the examination of a successful application is likely to take and (2) decisionmakers in the Congress and administration need to be able to measure the resources being devoted to unsuccessful applications. 6. We agree with PTO’s tentative plans to conduct an aging analysis of applications in-process at the end of the year in terms of their pendency from the date of filing. This is consistent with our recommendation and with our finding that the pendency statistics now reported do not address a significant portion of the examination workload. As shown in table II.1, the number of applications still under examination can be greater than the number of applications that resulted in a patent or were abandoned during the course of the year. 7. We agree with the Department’s statement that the old methods of calculating and reporting pendency no longer provide PTO managers and inventors with the information they need to determine the effect of pendency on the patent term or to evaluate PTO’s performance in one of its primary core businesses. Consequently, we do not disagree with PTO’s tentative plans to move to a cycle-time method for measuring and reporting pendency. However, PTO does not plan to implement the new procedures fully until fiscal year 2003. Also, implementation is dependent on a redesign of PTO’s application monitoring and tracking systems. Therefore, in the interim, PTO needs to implement our recommendations, using the monitoring and tracking system now in place. Also, we believe that in concept, these recommendations should be incorporated into any new pendency- reporting system. Kenneth A. Davis Frankie Fulton John P. Hunt, Jr. Mitchell Karpman Gary M. Malavenda Robin Nazzaro Paul Rhodes Julie Schneiberg Mindi Weisenbloom 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 Patent and Trademark Office's (PTO) operations, focusing on: (1) patent pendency; (2) PTO allocation of resources among its patent and trademark processes, dissemination of information, and executive direction and administration; and (3) a comparison of PTO workload and examination processes with those of other industrialized nations. GAO found that: (1) PTO computation and reporting of patent pendency is inadequate; (2) PTO does not provide separate statistics on patents issued, abandoned applications, or applications still in process in its pendency calculations; (3) PTO does not report variations in pendency among individual applications or measure pendency from the original filing date in accordance with patent law; (4) PTO does not determine how much of pendency is due to the patent examination process or applicant delays; (5) applicant delays may constitute as much as 36 percent of the average pendency period; (6) PTO has consistently committed most of its resources to its patent process, which in fiscal year (FY) 1995 constituted three-quarters of its funds and staff; (7) funding and staffing for the trademark process, executive direction and administration, and information dissemination also increased from FY 1986 through FY 1995; (8) during the same period, the PTO patent workload increased significantly while average pendency decreased by about 2.9 months; (9) it is difficult to compare the PTO patent examination process and pendency with those of Japan and Europe, which are the other two primary patent-granting entities; (10) Japan and Europe require an additional request for examination before starting the examination process, which may delay examination for months or years after an applicant's initial filing; and (11) Japan and Europe include applications in-process in their pendency computations.

Our recent analysis, Super Spending: U.S. Trends in High-Cost Medication Use, examines prescription drug use among patients with exceedingly high annual medication costs under the pharmacy benefit to help clients identify new opportunities to improve care, quality of life and health outcomes for the patients who rely on these costly, complex therapies. An estimated 576,000 Americans spent more than the median household income on prescription medications in 2014. This population of patients grew an astounding 63% from 2013. Further, the population of patients with costs of $100,000 or more nearly tripled during the same time period, to nearly 140,000 people. The total cost impact to payers from both patient populations is an unsustainable $52 billion a year. Profile of a High-Cost Population The patients in these extremely high-cost patient populations are overwhelmingly taking specialty medications, and have multiple comorbidities, prescriptions and prescribers. In fact, nine out of 10 patients with drug costs of $50,000 used specialty medications. Among patients whose costs reached $100,000 or higher: More than one-third of these patients were being treated for ten or more different medical conditions. The most common co-morbidities included high blood pressure, high cholsterol, diabetes and depression. Of note, the use of antidepressants was more than twice as prevalent as it is in the general population. Approximately 60% took 10 or more different medications. Approximately 72% had prescriptions written from at least four prescribers. 58% of the population were Baby Boomers, aged 51-70. Men represent 56% of patients with annual prescription costs exceeding $100,000. Top Therapy Classes Cost Drivers Compounded therapies, hepatitis C and cancer medications, comprise nearly two-thirds of drug spending in patients whose costs exceed $100,000 in 2014. Among patients in this highest-cost tier, 32% were taking cancer medications, and the number of patients receiving medication treatment for hepatitis C jumped 733% in 2014. Compounded medication use was the third-largest contributor to these extremely high medications costs. Among Americans with annual drug costs above $100,000, the proportion of patients using compounded medications grew 30% in 2014, while their costs on these compounded medications quadrupled. Patients Pay a Small Fraction of the Total Expense Insurance plans and employers covered more than 98% of the costs for patients whose prescription drug bills exceeded $100,000 in 2014, paying an average of $156,911 of these patients’ 2014 pharmacy costs. Patients within this highest-cost tier were responsible for less than 2% of their total 2014 pharmacy costs, paying an average $2,782 out-of-pocket in 2014. This reflects an annual decrease in the out-of-pocket percentage these patients paid in 2013. Average Annual Cost Per Patient Payer Preparedness The size, complexity and make-up of the patients in this population are a significant challenge for payers and require swift and effective solutions to improve care for these costliest patients. Reducing waste can create headroom for affordable coverage for patients who desperately need treatment. For example, addressing wasteful spending on compounded therapies that add little value to patient outcomes, and in a growing number of cases, may actually put a patient’s health at risk, can eliminate a significant contributor to high-cost medication use while protecting patients. Programs that improve medication adherence, particularly for patients with cancer and diabetes, can improve outcomes and help additional medical spending that result from less than optimal management of these conditions. Lastly, use of Express Scripts home delivery pharmacy and Accredo specialty allows us to treat the whole patient by providing a home pharmacy that offers integrated, coordinated care with specialist pharmacists, physicians, nurses, nutritionists and other specialists. We deliver more efficient, effective and personalized patient care for these vulnerable patients. And we guarantee it. The rapid growth of these patient populations threatens the affordability of medical coverage for patients and plan sponsors. A comprehensive management approach that effectively improves patient care and outcomes while reducing costs – and especially cost associated with wasteful spending – will help ensure new, innovative medications are readily available and affordable to the patients who need them most. Author Bio Glen Stettin, MD Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. Disqus ||||| ORLANDO, Fla., May 13, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- As pharmaceutical companies introduce more high-cost medications for larger populations, employers, health plans and others are increasingly challenged to control the significant increase in spending that happens as a result, according to new research released this week by Express Scripts (NASDAQ: ESRX) during its annual Outcomes Symposium. The new report, Super Spending: U.S. Trends in High-Cost Medication Use, examines prescription drug use among patients with exceedingly high annual medication costs under the pharmacy benefit. The number of U.S. patients estimated to have annual medication costs greater than $50,000 jumped 63 percent between 2013 and 2014, from 352,000 to 576,000 Americans. The population of patients estimated to be taking at least $100,000 worth of medication nearly tripled in the same time period, from 47,000 to 139,000 Americans. "The profile emerging from this research shows these patients are overwhelmingly taking specialty medications, and have multiple comorbidities, prescriptions and prescribers," said Glen Stettin, M.D., Senior Vice President, Clinical, Research and New Solutions at Express Scripts. "These insights highlight clear opportunities for payers to work with their PBM to improve care, quality of life and health outcomes for the patients who rely on these costly, complex therapies." Comorbidities, Polypharmacy Complicate Care Nine out of 10 patients with drug costs of $50,000 used specialty medications, which are expensive treatments for complex conditions. However, the analysis reveals patients at the top of the pyramid of prescription spending are often afflicted with numerous comorbidities that add to the complexity and cost of their care. Among patients whose costs reached $100,000 or higher: More than one-third were being treated for 10 or more different medical conditions; Approximately 60 percent took 10 or more different medications; and Approximately 72 percent had prescriptions written from at least four prescribers. Depression was one of the most common comorbidities among patients with more than $50,000 in annual costs, with about one-in-three patients having at least one prescription for an antidepressant in addition to their other therapies. The prevalence of antidepressant use among patients taking a specialty medication was 2.3 times higher compared to the national average. "Patients in these highest-spend categories are treating a complex condition along with other more common chronic conditions, such as diabetes or depression, which can leave them at risk for medication safety concerns and increased medical costs," said Dr. Stettin. "When we treat the whole patient, as we do in the Express Scripts Therapeutic Resource Centers® and our specialty pharmacy, Accredo, we provide a home pharmacy that offers integrated, coordinated care with other members of the patients' healthcare team. The result is more efficient, effective and personalized patient care." Costs driven by Hepatitis C, Cancer and Compounded Treatments Compounded therapies, hepatitis C and cancer medications, comprise nearly two-thirds of drug spending in patients whose costs exceeded $100,000 in 2014. Among patients in this highest-cost tier, 32 percent were taking cancer medications, and the number of patients receiving medication treatment for hepatitis C jumped 733 percent in 2014. Compounded medication use was the third-largest contributor to these extremely high medication costs. Among Americans with annual drug costs above $100,000, the proportion of patients using compounded medications grew 30 percent in 2014, while their costs on these compounded medications quadrupled. "Unlike high-priced hepatitis C and oncology therapies, most compounded medications add little-to-no value to patient outcomes, and in a growing number of cases, may actually put a patient's health at risk," said Dr. Stettin. "Tightly managing the use of compounded medications offers a significant opportunity for payers to improve patient safety and reduce spending." Majority of Patients in the Highest Spend Category are Baby Boomers Baby Boomers, ages 51-70, surpassed all other age groups as the highest-cost medication users, making up 58 percent of the population with annual drug costs exceeding $100,000, an increase of 243 percent from 2013 to 2014. Among Boomers in this high-cost category, 50 percent were being treated for cancer, 77 percent were being treated for hepatitis C, and 46 percent were taking compounded drugs. Patients Pay a Small Fraction of the Total Expense Insurance plans covered more than 98 percent of the costs for patients whose prescription drug bills exceeded $100,000 in 2014, paying an average of $156,911 of these patients' 2014 pharmacy costs. Patients within this highest-cost tier were responsible for less than 2 percent of their total 2014 pharmacy costs, reflecting an annual decrease in the out-of-pocket percentage these patients pay. Methodology The analysis examined de-identified prescription drug claims of 31.5 million insured Americans between 2013 and 2014. The research included beneficiaries with pharmacy coverage through commercial insurers, Medicare and Medicaid. To review the full report, please visit lab.express-scripts.com. About Express Scripts Express Scripts manages more than a billion prescriptions each year for tens of millions of patients. On behalf of our clients — employers, health plans, unions and government health programs — we make the use of prescription drugs safer and more affordable. Express Scripts uniquely combines three capabilities — behavioral sciences, clinical specialization and actionable data — to create Health Decision ScienceSM, our innovative approach to help individuals make the best drug choices, pharmacy choices and health choices. Better decisions mean healthier outcomes. Headquartered in St. Louis, Express Scripts provides integrated pharmacy-benefit management services, including network-pharmacy claims processing, home delivery, specialty benefit management, benefit-design consultation, drug-utilization review, formulary management, and medical and drug data analysis services. The company also distributes a full range of biopharmaceutical products and provides extensive cost-management and patient-care services. For more information, visit Lab.Express-Scripts.com or follow @ExpressScripts on Twitter. Media Contacts: David Whitrap, Express Scripts 314-517-3605 [email protected] Jennifer Luddy, Express Scripts 908-794-9226 [email protected] Logo - http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20080827/EXPRESSSCRIPTSLOGO SOURCE Express Scripts ||||| Pricey cancer drugs, expensive new cures for hepatitis and made-to-order drugs have driven U.S. prescription costs to new highs for some Americans, according to a report issued Wednesday. It finds that more than half a million Americans each took home $50,000 or more worth of prescription drugs last year. And the number of super-high spenders prescribed $100,000 or more worth of medications nearly tripled from 47,000 to 139,000, pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts says. These are often very sick people, the report found. “Among patients whose drug costs reached at least $100,000, more than one-third were treated for at least 10 conditions and more than 60 percent were taking at least 10 different prescription medications,” the report reads. “Among patients whose drug costs reached at least $100,000, more than one-third were treated for at least 10 conditions." For those spending $100,000 or more a year, specialty, made-to-order drugs known as compounded therapies, as well as drugs for hepatitis C and to treat cancer accounted for two-thirds of the costs, Express Scripts found. The hepatitis C drugs include Gilead Science’s Sovaldi, which can cure the liver-destroying virus. Gilead charges $84,000 for the three-month drug course, and argues that it costs less than treating patients for a lifetime of liver disease. Play Facebook Twitter Embed Report: Drug costs top $50,000 for 575,000 Americans 0:20 autoplay autoplay Copy this code to your website or blog Express Scripts, which has actively fought drug companies over their pricing, has refused to cover Gilead’s other expensive hepatitis C drug Harvoni, and instead negotiated a deal with rival drugmaker Abbvie to get its hepatitis C drug Viekira at a discount. The benefits manager, which covers about 85 million Americans, has also complained about pricey cancer drugs. Bristol-Myers Squibb’s melanoma drug Yervoy can keep patients with terminal melanoma alive for a year or longer but it costs $120,000 for a course of treatment. Patients are almost never bearing these high costs. Insurance plans covered more than 98 percent of the costs for patients whose drugs cost $100,000 or more in 2014. “Across the cost spectrum, patients in 2014 paid an average of 13.5 percent of their total medication costs, down from 14.9 percent in 2013,” the report reads. "Patients are overwhelmingly taking specialty medications, and have multiple comorbidities, prescriptions and prescribers." Express Scripts used data from 31.5 million insured Americans covered by commercial insurers, Medicare and Medicaid for its report. “The profile emerging from this research shows these patients are overwhelmingly taking specialty medications, and have multiple comorbidities, prescriptions and prescribers,” said Dr. Glen Stettin, senior vice president for clinical research at Express Scripts. The report found that 90 percent of patients with drug costs of $50,000 used specialty medications, which are expensive treatments for complex conditions. More than a third of them were being treated for 10 or more different medical conditions. ||||| More than a half-million U.S. patients had medication costs in excess of $50,000 in 2014, an increase of 63 percent from the prior year, as doctors prescribed more expensive specialty drugs for diseases such as cancer and hepatitis C, according to an Express Scripts report released on Wednesday. Of the estimated 575,000 Americans who used at least $50,000 in prescription medicines last year, about 139,000 used at least $100,000 worth of medication, nearly triple the 47,000 who hit that mark in 2013, the report said. The total cost to health plans for U.S. patients with prescription drug expenses in excess of $50,000 was $52 billion in 2014, Express Scripts said in its report: "Super Spending: Trends in High-Cost Medication Use." "These patients are overwhelmingly taking specialty medications, and have multiple (health problems), prescriptions and prescribers," Glen Stettin, Express Scripts Holding Co's head of clinical, research and new solutions, said in a statement. Health insurance covered 97.4 percent of the drug expenses among patients prescribed at least $50,000 worth of medicines in 2014, according to Express Scripts, the largest U.S. pharmacy benefit manager. By contrast, patients with less than $1,000 in total prescription medication costs paid 35 percent of the bill out of pocket. Among baby boomers aged 51 to 70 in the high-cost category, 77 percent were being treated for hepatitis C, for which costly new cures were introduced last year. Fifty percent were being treated for cancer, for which several expensive new drugs were approved in the last two years. The new drugs for those diseases alone can cost upwards of $90,000 per patient. About 60 percent of patients in the super-spending report were taking at least 10 medicines from at least four different prescribers. "Patients in these highest-spend categories are treating a complex condition along with other more common chronic conditions, such as diabetes or depression," Stettin said. Anti-depressant use among those also taking a specialty medicine was more than twice the national average, the report found. The report looked at prescription drug claims of 31.5 million Americans with either commercial health insurance or coverage through federal and state Medicare and Medicaid plans. Pharmacy benefit managers like Express Scripts negotiate prescription drug pricing for employers and health plans and run large mail-order pharmacies. (Reporting by Bill Berkrot; Editing by Lisa Von Ahn)

Prescription drugs are pricey: According to a report released Wednesday by benefits manager Express Scripts, more than 500,000 people in 2014 took home meds costing a total of $50,000 or more per year, while the number of big spenders who took home at least $100,000 worth of drugs annually jumped from 47,000 to 139,000 between 2013 and last year, NBC News reports. About 60% of the patients in the $100,000 group were taking at least 10 medicines from no fewer than four different prescribers, Reuters reports. "Patients in these highest-spend categories are treating a complex condition along with other more common chronic conditions, such as diabetes or depression," an Express Scripts' head researcher says in a statement. A significant factor in the 63% increase of those dropping at least $50,000: More prescriptions are being issued for pricey specialty drugs for diseases such as hepatitis C and cancer, Reuters notes. Using info from 31.5 million insured Americans (covered by either commercial insurers or Medicaid/Medicare), the report also figured out the cost to payers for these pricey prescriptions: what the report labels "an unsustainable" $52 billion per year. But insurance picks up most of the tab, with plans covering almost 98% of the bill in the $100,000-plus group, per a press release. (What one expert calls "highway robbery": the trend of manufacturers to hike drug prices as soon as they buy them from other companies.)

FFRDCs are federally sponsored entities—operated by universities, nonprofit institutions, or industrial firms under contract with the federal government—that provide research, development, systems engineering, and analytical services to federal government agencies. In awarding these contracts, the government need not seek open competition, and it traditionally has undertaken a commitment to provide a sufficient, stable body of work to maintain the essential core of scientific and engineering talent at an FFRDC. The Director of Defense Research and Engineering oversees DOD’s FFRDCs. MITRE, a nonprofit company, operates an FFRDC for DOD under contracts with the Air Force and the Army. It also operates an FFRDC under a contract with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). In addition, through its non-FFRDC divisions, MITRE provides services to DOD agencies, federal civilian agencies, and state and foreign governments. Payment of contract fees to organizations that operate FFRDCs is addressed in DOD regulations. The regulations instruct contracting officers to first examine an organization’s retained earnings to determine whether a fee is needed. If a fee is needed, contracting officers must consider the organization’s needs to purchase capital equipment, to rebuild working capital, and to pay certain ordinary and necessary business expenses that are not reimbursable under procurement regulations. The Air Force has expanded on this guidance by instructing contracting officers to consider such items as depreciation charges, investment earnings, and fees earned on non-DOD contracts as sources of funds to offset the need for fees, a process that the Army also follows. Once a fee is awarded, its use is left to an FFRDC’s discretion. Each year, MITRE submits a fee proposal to the Army and the Air Force outlining its anticipated needs to purchase capital equipment, rebuild working capital, and pay nonreimbursable expenses for the coming year. The proposal includes estimates of the depreciation charges, investment earnings, and fees on non-DOD contracts that will provide sources of funds to meet these needs as well as a proposed fee for its DOD contracts. Generally, MITRE uses historical trends to estimate its anticipated funding needs and the sources of funds available to meet these needs. For fiscal year 1994, the Army provided MITRE a fixed fee of $7.6 million, representing 4.4 percent of estimated contract costs, and the Air Force provided a fee of $10.2 million, or 4.5 percent of estimated contract costs. These amounts included a traditional 3 percent of estimated contract costs—$5.2 million for the Army and $7.2 million for the Air Force—to support MITRE’s independent research program. Beginning in fiscal year 1995, both services are funding MITRE’s independent research through charges to overhead—comparable to the treatment of independent research for commercial contractors. This change has allowed the Army and the Air Force to significantly reduce fees awarded MITRE. Neither OMB nor DOD has issued guidance that specifies the nonreimbursable costs contracting officers should consider in negotiating contract fees, as we recommended in our 1969 report. In that report, we concluded that some fees were appropriate because some necessary business expenses may not be reimbursed under government procurement regulations but questioned whether some costs paid from fee were necessary. Thus, to assist contracting officers in negotiating fees, we recommended that guidance be developed providing examples of costs that could appropriately be considered in negotiating fees. DOD’s current guidance notes that FFRDCs may incur some necessary but nonreimbursable costs but provides no examples of costs contracting officers may consider as ordinary and necessary. In the absence of specific guidelines, the use of a fee for nonreimbursable costs has stimulated continuing controversy. During the late 1980s, the Air Force became concerned that MITRE used its contract fees for excessive and unnecessary expenditures and urged MITRE to reduce these expenses. MITRE agreed to various actions to reduce expenses. For example, MITRE agreed to limit the size of holiday parties and to reduce their costs. Further, MITRE instructed company officers to use first-class air travel only when they needed to perform work during a trip that could not be done in the coach cabin. Recognizing the potential for controversy regarding fee expenditures, Army and Air Force contracting officers said they have strengthened oversight of fee use and have challenged expenditures they considered inappropriate. For example, in fiscal year 1995, the Army and Air Force contracting officers began using detailed quarterly expenditure reports to monitor fee usage. Among the proposed expenses the contracting officers challenged during negotiations on fiscal year 1995 fees were costs for social functions and meals provided at business meetings. DCAA has also raised questions about MITRE’s use of fees. During its review of MITRE’s fiscal year 1993 fee expenditures, DCAA concluded that fees were used to pay for lavish entertainment, personal expenses for company officers, and generous employee benefits. In addition, DCAA concluded that MITRE charged expenses to fees that would ordinarily be considered allowable, thereby avoiding the routine audit oversight normally accorded such costs. DCAA concluded that only 11 percent of the expenditures reviewed were “ordinary and necessary” business expenses. MITRE made similar expenditures during fiscal year 1994, and it plans to continue such expenditures—at a reduced level in some cases—during fiscal year 1995. DCAA reported on numerous instances where MITRE used fees for entertainment expenses. For example, during fiscal year 1993, MITRE used fees to pay for a holiday party for company executives held in McLean, Virginia. This party cost $37,719, or about $110 for each of the 342 guests attending. During fiscal year 1994, MITRE held a similar holiday party at the McLean Hilton that cost $33,177. DCAA also cited use of fees to pay for a reception and dinners for the Board of Trustees during May 1993 at a cost of $21,208, or $118 per person, as well as $2,500 for a luncheon and tour of Washington, D.C., for spouses of the Trustees during the spring Trustees meeting. During fiscal year 1994, MITRE used fees to pay for a similar reception and dinners held in connection with the fall Trustees meeting; the cost was $18,778. DCAA also reported that MITRE used fees to pay personal expenses for company officers. For example, MITRE used $5,547 in fees during fiscal year 1993 to install a home security system in the company president’s residence. During fiscal year 1994, MITRE used fees to pay the $22 monthly monitoring fee for the president’s home security system. Similarly, DCAA questioned the practice of paying for personal use of company-furnished automobiles with fees, which totaled $28,605 during fiscal year 1994. DCAA also noted generous benefits for employees during its review. For example, DCAA noted that during fiscal year 1993 MITRE used fees to pay the company president a miscellaneous relocation allowance of $31,292. MITRE continued to use fees for these allowances during fiscal year 1994, charging $689,265 or an average of $5,696 per employee relocated. In response to concerns raised by the services, and direction from the Congress, MITRE has reduced some fee expenditures. For example, MITRE has suspended the holiday party for executives. Consistent with restrictions in the Fiscal Year 1995 National Defense Authorization Act, MITRE no longer uses fees to match employees’ contributions to educational institutions and is not making corporate contributions to civic and service organizations. On the other hand, MITRE plans to continue using fees for some expenses DCAA criticized, such as providing officers company cars for personal use and generous miscellaneous allowances for employees who are relocated. MITRE maintains that its fee expenditures are comparable to the costs commercial concerns incur and are necessary to attract and retain top-quality technical and management personnel. Because the Army and the Air Force delay providing contract funding at the start of a fiscal year, MITRE needs discretionary funding—provided through fees—to cover estimates of nonreimbursable interest costs. MITRE operates under a series of annual contract options awarded by the Army and the Air Force, and funds allotted to one fiscal year’s contract may not be carried over to a following fiscal year. Further, funding comes from the various program offices for which MITRE does work, rather than from a single Army- or Air Force-wide source. Once the various program offices transfer funds to the contracting officer, the contracting officer issues contract changes to allot the funds. MITRE’s contracts with the two services provide for reimbursement of allowable costs incurred, limited to the amount of funds allotted to the contracts. Thus, MITRE cannot submit bills for the cost of the work it has started until the funds have been allotted. During fiscal year 1994, delays in providing funding for MITRE’s Army and Air Force contracts were significant. The Army, for example, first allotted funds to MITRE’s contract on November 30, 1993—2 months after work on the contract began. As of January 1994, allotments amounted to only 16 percent of estimated cost and did not reach 95 percent of estimated costs until August 1994. For several large projects, no funds were allotted until March 1994—almost 6 months after work started. Funding delays affect MITRE’s finances. MITRE records costs incurred for which no billings have been submitted as “unbilled costs.” The level of unbilled costs carried on MITRE’s books varied through fiscal year 1994 and reached $85.6 million at the end of January 1994—about 73 percent of the company’s net worth. Unbilled costs on Army and Air Force contracts accounted for $66.6 million of the $85.6 million total. MITRE had $47.6 million in loans outstanding at the end of January 1994 and incurred $866,000 in interest costs during the year. We estimate that, if unbilled costs on Army and Air Force contracts had been due only to normal bill processing delays, average unbilled costs for the contracts would have been reduced from $38.2 million to $15.1 million during fiscal year 1994. Reducing average unbilled costs by $23.1 million would significantly reduce MITRE’s financing burden. Since MITRE’s average borrowings during fiscal year 1994 were $21.7 million, the need to provide fees to cover nonreimbursable interest costs would have been substantially reduced or eliminated. Several military program management personnel cited a desire to retain funds to deal with contingencies as a reason for having delayed funding MITRE’s work. One said that he was unaware that funding delays adversely affected the company. Another program management official, however, stated that they have a good idea of how much MITRE support they will use during a year; thus, there is no excuse for delaying funds. In fiscal year 1995, the Air Force placed a high priority on obtaining prompt funding of MITRE projects. By January 1995, the Air Force had allotted funds representing about 85 percent of the estimated contract costs. Other options for reducing MITRE’s financing requirements include the advance payment pool mechanism that some university-sponsored FFRDCs use and the revolving budget authority account that the Air Force uses to provide advance funding to The Aerospace Corporation. DOD’s oversight of MITRE’s fee expenditures does not ensure that negotiated fee awards are equitable and consistent. Army and Air Force contracting officers generally analyze past MITRE fee expenditures to estimate fee needs for future years. However, because MITRE has contracts with many other federal agencies and state and foreign governments, we believe it is important that each customer bear an equitable share of fee expenditures. Since contracting officers do not routinely screen fee expenditures for nonrecurring costs, we are concerned that estimates of future fee needs may be distorted. Finally, we noted that lack of clear guidance on using fee to provide financing led the Army to award MITRE a fee for fiscal year 1995 that was higher than the Air Force contracting officer’s. Army and Air Force contracting officers have not determined if MITRE’s estimates of fees on non-DOD contracts, which reflect anticipated fee rates and volumes of business, are reasonable. As shown in table 1, in 3 of the last 4 years, MITRE underestimated non-DOD fee earnings. In fiscal year 1994, the underestimate amounted to about $1.2 million, or almost 12 percent of estimated non-DOD fee earnings. Contracting officers, in some cases, have analyzed past trends in non-DOD fee earnings but have not reviewed the reasonableness of estimates for future years. Thus, MITRE was able to obtain larger fees from combined DOD and non-DOD sources than contemplated in the Army and the Air Force fee negotiations. Army and Air Force contracting officers have only occasionally determined whether fee expenditures related to DOD and non-DOD work were proportional to the work performed. This is partly due to MITRE’s accounting system commingling fee expenditures, making it difficult to identify fee expenses that relate primarily to non-DOD customers. For example, in fiscal year 1994, MITRE recorded $79,181 in costs incurred for first-class airfare and similar nonreimbursable travel expenses in a single company account. One individual, the chief of the MITRE division that does air traffic control work for FAA, incurred $21,000, or about 27 percent, of these charges. In one instance, the chief spent $6,486 for a first-class flight to London, England, to attend an air traffic control conference. MITRE claimed reimbursement for the $2,471 cost of a coach ticket and charged the additional $4,015 cost of a first-class ticket to the commingled fee account even though MITRE acknowledged that these trips were related to MITRE’s air traffic control system work for foreign governments. MITRE has recently changed its accounting system to account for fee expenditures by division—roughly representing major customers—providing an opportunity to more readily determine what customer benefits from particular expenses. In addition, contracting officers have not analyzed the relative needs for working capital related to different customers. Payment cycles on MITRE’s non-DOD contracts are typically longer than those on DOD contracts. Both the Army and the Air Force contracts provide for biweekly billings, and timeliness of payment is routinely discussed during fee negotiations. Many non-DOD contracts, however, provide for monthly, rather than biweekly, billings, and payments on these contracts are generally less prompt. Consequently, non-DOD customers have made proportionately heavier demands on MITRE’s working capital than the Army and the Air Force. During fiscal year 1994, accounts receivable due from non-DOD customers represented an average of 60 days of revenue, compared to 12.7 days for the Army and the Air Force. The unbilled costs for both DOD and non-DOD customers each averaged roughly 35 days of revenue. Thus, the total financing burden for non-DOD customers of 94.3 days of revenue was almost twice the financing burden for the Army and the Air Force, which was 48.2 days. Contracting officers did not routinely analyze MITRE fee expenditures to identify nonrecurring costs that would distort projections of future fee needs. Major categories of nonrecurring expenses have been occasionally identified. DCAA, for example, identified several nonrecurring items in its review of 1993 fee expenditures. We noted several expenditures that appeared to be nonrecurring in nature during our review of 1994 fee expenditures, as the following shows. A charge of $507,000 to reconcile MITRE’s accounting records to its property management records. During fiscal year 1994, MITRE undertook a major effort to identify discrepancies between its property and accounting record-keeping systems because independent auditors had criticized it for not reconciling the two systems regularly. A charge of $270,000 to record anticipated costs of providing meals and refreshments at meetings. MITRE accounting staff told us that at the end of fiscal year 1994, costs incurred for meals and refreshments at meetings were substantially less than in previous years. This charge was recorded because the accounting staff anticipated that these costs would eventually equal those of previous years, but the anticipated costs did not materialize. A charge of $310,845 to write off losses on contracts with the German government. These losses were written off as part of an agreement to resolve payment disputes on work performed between 1979 and 1992. Lack of sufficient guidance on use of fee to provide financing for FFRDCs led Army and Air Force contracting officers to award significantly different fee rates. In 1993, MITRE obtained a 3-year term loan to take advantage of favorable, fixed interest rates rather than the fluctuating rates on its short-term borrowing. In fee negotiations for fiscal year 1995, MITRE proposed that it obtain another term loan during 1995. The Air Force considered the proceeds of this loan as a source of cash, offset by a need to make principal payments on the term loan, and awarded a fee of $2 million, or about 0.9 percent of estimated contract costs. The Army, on the other hand, excluded both loan proceeds and principal payments from its analysis of 1995 fee requirements because it was unwilling to make a commitment to provide fee to cover principal payments in future years. Consequently, the Army awarded a fee of $3.7 million on its somewhat smaller contract, amounting to 2.3 percent of estimated costs. DOD guidance provides no suggestions on how contracting officers should treat financing transactions in analyzing fee needs. In the Conference Report of the DOD Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1995, the Congress directed DOD to review how its FFRDCs have used fees and provide recommendations for revising the DOD FFRDC fee structure. The results of that review, reported in May 1995, are consistent with the findings of our current work and recommendations we made in 1969 regarding fees granted sponsored nonprofit research organizations. DOD’s report identified a need for stronger guidance on FFRDC fees and more consistent fee awards. In its report, DOD concludes that because the Weighted Guidelines Method normally results in a fee greater than demonstrated need, some contracting officers have awarded unneeded fees. DOD recommended that the guidance be revised to (1) make it clear that need will be the criterion for awarding fees to FFRDCs, (2) avoid using undefined and ambiguous terms to describe fee needs, and (3) identify specific costs that are inappropriate to pay from fees. We found that Army and Air Force fee analysis procedures are intended to limit MITRE’s fee to demonstrated need. The lack of a clear description of costs that fees can be used to cover, however, has complicated contracting officers’ efforts to ascertain MITRE’s fee needs. DOD’s report also identified a need for greater audit oversight of costs FFRDCs have historically paid from fees, such as the costs for independent research programs, contract termination, and capital equipment. In its report, DOD recommends, as we did in 1969, that independent research be treated as a reimbursable cost so that expenditures will be subject to routine audit oversight. The Army and the Air Force have implemented this treatment of independent research costs at MITRE. DOD’s report also recommended that termination costs should be audited and reimbursed directly when and if an FFRDC’s contract is terminated; fees should not be provided for such costs. We have opposed using fees to build contingency reserves, and MITRE has not requested fees to build termination cost reserves. As to financing capital equipment with fees, DOD recommends that the FFRDCs capital acquisition plans be thoroughly audited. We have recommended that FFRDC sponsors fund capital equipment purchases directly through contract charges rather than through fee. We noted that the capital equipment acquisition plan MITRE proposed during fiscal year 1994 fee negotiations differed markedly from MITRE’s actual purchases for the year. We recommend that the Secretary of Defense issue guidance that, to the extent practicable, specifically identifies the nature and extent of nonreimbursable costs that may be covered by fee and the costs for which fees should not be provided; consider the feasibility of issuing guidance specifying the circumstances in which each of the various funding and payment methods devised by the services should be used; and assign responsibility to the Director of Defense Research and Engineering for routinely surveying the services’ fee-granting processes for FFRDCs, identifying and promoting the use of effective or innovative analytical practices, and recommending needed changes to eliminate inconsistencies in awarding fees. DOD generally concurred with a draft of this report. It stated that the report would be helpful to ongoing DOD efforts to strengthen its procedures for the oversight and use of management fees by DOD-sponsored FFRDCs. However, DOD pointed out that none of the data in the report represented improper activity, as currently defined by contract or regulation, on the part of either the Air Force, the Army, or the MITRE Corporation. DOD also agreed with our recommendations and indicated it would take steps to address them. It added that (1) in fiscal year 1996 DOD will address inappropriate use of fees during the contract negotiation process and (2) beginning in fiscal year 1995, fee expenditures are being associated directly with the cost centers (i.e., contracts) benefiting from the expenses. DOD said that these steps will result in reductions in the amount of fee paid to an FFRDC and help ensure that it pays only its fair share of fee expenses. DOD’s comments are presented in their entirety in appendix I. MITRE agreed with our recommendation on the need for strengthened guidance on the nature and extent of nonreimbursable costs that may be covered by fee and the costs for which fees should not be provided. It also agreed with our observation regarding interest costs incurred as a result of delays in funding, as well as in billing and payment cycles and said it would welcome some form of advance funding/payment mechanism. MITRE’s comments are presented in their entirety in appendix II. We reviewed documentation relating to company organization and management and interviewed MITRE officials at the company’s Bedford, Massachusetts, and McLean, Virginia, locations. We also reviewed accounting records and supporting documentation relating to fee expenditures during fiscal year 1994. We selected fiscal year 1994 because it was the most recently competed fiscal year at the time of our review and because expenditures for fiscal year 1993 had been reviewed by DCAA. We interviewed officials and reviewed documentation maintained at the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, the DOD Inspector General, and DCAA. We also interviewed officials and reviewed documentation relating to contract fee awards at the three agencies that contract with MITRE for FFRDC operations: the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; the Air Force Electronic Systems Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Massachusetts; and FAA, Washington, D.C.. We conducted our review from October 1994 to August 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 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 other interested congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the President of the MITRE Corporation. We will also make copies available to others on request. Please contact me at (202) 512-4587 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. The following is GAO’s comment on the MITRE Corporation’s letter dated October 26, 1995. 1. During the period covered by our review, MITRE did not have accounting mechanisms in place to track fee expenditures separately for each contract or customer. Consequently, data was not available to perform a structured analysis of whether contracts or customers paid a fair share of fees. As we note in our report, MITRE has changed its accounting system to account for fee expenditures by division or major customer. This data should facilitate analyses to determine whether fees are equitable among customers. Thorton L. Harvey Monty Peters 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 examined the use of Department of Defense (DOD) management fees provided to the Mitre Corporation, focusing on: (1) the adequacy of federal guidance on how fees may be used; (2) ways to reduce contractor management fees and strengthen DOD management fee oversight; and (3) DOD efforts to improve the fee management process for its federally funded research and development centers (FFRDC). GAO found that: (1) neither the Office of Management and Budget nor DOD has prepared sufficient guidance on negotiating FFRDC contract fees; (2) consequently, recurring questions are raised about Mitre's use of fees, as well as the use of fees by other DOD FFRDC; (3) the services have delayed providing contract funding at the start of a fiscal year; (4) consequently, Mitre has needed large amounts of fee to cover interest expenses; and (5) DOD oversight of contract fees has not ensured that fee awards to Mitre are reasonable and consistent.

The avifauna of Indonesia is one of the richest in the world but the taxonomic status of many species remains poorly documented. The sole species of scops owl known from Lombok has long been assigned to the widespread Moluccan Scops Owl Otus magicus on the basis of superficial similarities in morphology. Field work in 2003 has shown that the territorial song of the scops owls inhabiting the foothills of Gunung Rinjani differs dramatically from that of O. magicus and is more similar to those of Rufescent Scops Owl O. rufescens and Singapore Scops Owl O. cnephaeus. Detailed comparisons of sound recordings and museum specimens with those of other scops owls in Wallacea and the Indo-Malayan region have confirmed the distinctiveness of the Lombok population. We describe Otus jolandae as a new species, the Rinjani Scops Owl. It is locally common at elevations from 25–1350 m. and occurs within Gunung Rinjani National Park. The new species is known from seven specimens collected by Alfred Everett in 1896. Otus jolandae represents the first endemic bird species from Lombok. Copyright: © 2013 Sangster et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. During our visits to Lombok, no other scops owls were heard. We obtained no evidence for the presence of O. magicus, despite playback of the latter’s songs at multiple localities in suitable habitat. Comparison of our photographs of the scops owls on Lombok indicates that these are of the same taxon as a series of specimens obtained on the island by Alfred Everett in 1896 at the same elevations as where we found our scops owl to be common. Detailed comparisons of sound recordings with Indonesian species of Otus and comparisons of museum specimens in the American Museum of Natural History, New York (AMNH) and the Natural History Museum, Tring (BMNH) indicate that the Lombok population represents a previously undescribed species. Aided by sound recordings provided by G.S., Philippe Verbelen and Bram Demeulemeester visited the foothills of the Gunung Rinjani in August 2008 and obtained photographs ( Figure 1 ) and further sound recordings of the owl. They found the species to be common at two localities, Sapit and Senaru. They learned that the owls are known to locals as ‘burung pok’, an onomatopoeic name reflecting the song note of the bird, which may be transcribed as ‘pok’ or ‘poook’. Only a few days later, Ben F. King observed and recorded scops owls on Lombok and independently concluded that their vocalizations differ from those of O. magicus, O. lempiji, O. m. manadensis and other Asian scops owls. Ben King’s observations and recordings were made on 7 September 2003 about 1 km NNW of Sesaot (circa 8°31.5′S, 116°14.5′E) on the SW slope of Gunung Rinjani initially at circa 400 m elevation and subsequently closer to Sesaot at circa 200 m. Both sites are circa 1 km to the west of and outside of the SW boundary of Gunung Rinjani National Park. Fifteen individuals were heard (two of which were observed) during about 4 hours. Playback of the owls calls eventually brought them close enough for a good look. Playback of other owl species calls was not attempted. In September 2003, George Sangster and Jolanda A. Luksenburg visited the foothills of Gunung (Mount) Rinjani near Sapit, Lombok, Indonesia to make sound recordings of Large-tailed Nightjars Caprimulgus macrurus for a taxonomic study [21] . On 3 September, at dusk they heard the owl-like whistles of several duetting or duelling individuals. Playback and spotlighting allowed them to identify the callers as a scops owl of the O. magicus/O. manadensis complex. During the next evening, scops owls with similar vocalizations were heard and seen at a different locality within Gunung Rinjani National Park. Although the scops owls on Lombok have been attributed to Moluccan Scops Owl O. magicus by previous authors [22] , [23] , the songs of the scops owls on Lombok were clearly very different from those of O. magicus that Sangster and Luksenburg had heard and recorded only a week before on Flores, and were also noticeably different from those of Sunda Scops Owl O. lempiji in Java and Sulawesi Scops Owl O. m. manadensis in Sulawesi. Playback of the songs of O. magicus and Wallace’s Scops Owl O. silvicola (which are both known from the nearby island of Sumbawa) did not result in any acoustic or behavioural response. In contrast, the scops owls responded vigorously to playback of the Lombok songs by singing and approaching the loudspeaker. In the 1970s, it was discovered that vocalizations of scops owls may offer clues to their taxonomic status and affinities [10] – [12] . Marshall [13] subsequently proposed that species limits in scops owls and other small nightbirds are better inferred from vocalizations than from variation in morphology, and offered a revised classification of the species of Otus. In recent years, vocalizations have played an important role in many taxonomic revisions of owls [3] , [4] , [7] , [14] , [15] . In the field, vocalizations are often the first clue that a population represents a distinct species [8] , [9] . Vocalizations are relevant for species level taxonomic studies of owls for two major reasons. First, as in most other non-passerines, variation in the vocalizations of owls is not learned and thus most likely has a genetic basis. As a consequence, differences in vocalizations may reflect evolutionary history. It has been shown for a number of genera that closely related species which have different vocalizations are also phylogenetically distinct, including Glaucidium [14] , [16] , Megascops [15] , [17] , Otus [13] , [18] and Psilopsis [3] , [11] , but see [19] . Second, vocalizations of owls are involved in mate choice and species recognition [20] . Therefore, differences in vocalizations may indicate that populations do not recognize each other as potential mates or competitors for mates. Owls play an important role in many terrestrial ecosystems [1] . However, despite much study, many aspects of the biology, evolutionary history and taxonomy of owls remain poorly known. The incomplete state of knowledge is underscored by the rapid increase of the number of recognized species of owls, from 146 species in 1975 [2] to 250 species in 2008 [3] . This increase is due both to taxonomic revisions [4] – [6] and new discoveries [7] – [9] . The Old World scops owls Otus represent the most speciose genus of owls with 51 currently recognized species [3] . Species limits in scops owls are poorly understood due to their complex pattern of individual and geographic variation, the rarity of many species and subspecies in museum collections, and the lack of detailed and comprehensive taxonomic studies. The electronic edition of this article conforms to the requirements of the amended International Code of Zoological Nomenclature [30] , and hence the new name contained herein is available under that Code from the electronic edition of this article. This published work and the nomenclatural act it contains have been registered in ZooBank, the online registration system for the ICZN. The ZooBank LSIDs (Life Science Identifiers) can be resolved and the associated information viewed through any standard web browser by appending the LSID to the prefix “ http://zoobank.org/ ”. The LSID for this publication is: urn:lsid:zoobank.org:pub:014E23D0-6044-4​113-AE53-803838722306.The electronic edition of this work was published in a journal with an ISSN, and has been archived and is available from the following digital repositories: PubMed Central, LOCKSS, ResearchGate, and DIVA (Stockholm University). Species and subspecies limits of Old World scops owls are unstable and differ among authorities [3] , [23] , [27] – [29] . For the purpose of this paper, we follow the most recent classification of König & Weick [3] . Canonical discriminant function analysis (DFA) was applied to the acoustic and morphometric variables to test whether the individuals could be correctly assigned to previously defined groups. DFA generates a set of criteria to assign individuals to groups that are defined prior to the analysis. Prior to DFA analysis, a tolerance test was conducted to assess the independence of each variable. Variables that fail the tolerance test, i.e. which are an almost linear combination of other variables, were excluded from the analyses. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to explore the acoustic and morphometric datasets. PCA reduces multiple variables to a limited number of uncorrelated variables. ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc comparisons were used to test whether the groups differed from each other. Whenever possible, we recorded the following information from each specimen: bill length (culmen from skull, from anterior point of nostril), wing length (chord of flattened wing from bend of wing to tip of longest primary), wing formula, shortfall of P4–P10 to tip of longest primary, and tail length (longest rectrix measured from point of insertion of central rectrices to tip of longest rectrix). Mensural characters were measured to the nearest 1 mm. Plumage colours of specimens were compared to published colour standards [24] , [25] . Colours in capital letters follow Ridgway [24] , whereas those marked with an asterisk follow Smithe [25] . To identify morphological differences between the Lombok population and other taxa, we examined 115 specimens of 9 taxa in the Otus magicus/O. manadensis complex ( Figure 2 ), and specimens of selected other species of Otus occurring in Java and the Lesser Sunda Islands ( Table S2 ). Museum specimens are housed in the American Museum of Natural History, New York (AMNH), the Natural History Museum, Tring (BMNH) and the Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm (NRM). In addition, we examined digital photographs of the unique type of Otus scops obsti Eck, 1973. Characters were defined and assessed on the basis of sonagrams and oscillograms. We recorded measurements of the following 15 variables: F1, frequency at start (Hz); F2, frequency at end (Hz); F3, frequency at 25% of total song duration (Hz); F4, frequency at midpoint (Hz); F5, frequency at 75% of total song duration (Hz); F6, frequency at maximum amplitude (Hz); F7, maximum frequency (Hz); F8, minimum frequency (Hz); DT1, total song duration (s); DT2, time to maximum amplitude (s); DT3, time to maximum frequency (s); DF1, frequency drop from start to end (Hz); DF2, frequency range (Hz); DFT1, slope from 25% to 75% of total song duration (Hz/s); DFT2, slope from midpoint to end (Hz/s). In order to give equal weight to individuals, means of up to five songs were computed for each recording. These means were used as sample points from which ranges, means and standard deviations were computed. Recordings from Lombok were included in statistical analyses if visual confirmation was obtained about the identity of the callers (e.g. through playback of recordings). The recorded owls were identified as members of the Otus magicus/O. manadensis complex based on a combination of whitish (rather than buff) markings on the belly, lack of a pale nuchal collar and presence of strong dark markings on the underparts (ruling out O. cnephaeus and O. rufescens, which have vocalizations similar to those of the scops owls on Lombok). Recordings of all known species of Otus in Indonesia, Southeast Asia and the Philippines were available for study except O. alius, O. stresemanni, O. kalidupae and O. siaoensis for which no recent observations are known [3] . Locations and recordists for all the recordings examined are listed in Table S1 . Our recordings from Lombok will be deposited in the Macaulay Library of Natural Sounds, Cornell University. No specific permits were required for the described field activities or for the visited locations which are not privately-owned or protected in any way. Permissions to visit Gunung Rinjani National Park were obtained locally from park rangers. In the DFA, four discriminant functions were extracted, of which the first explained 84.1% of the variance. All characters passed the tolerance test. The descriptive DFA was highly significant (Wilks’ lambda = 0.026; Chi-square 36 = 161.4; P<0.001). The variables most important in the discrimination were bill length, wing length, and shortfall of P8 ( Table S6 ). Overall, 82.7% of cases were classified correctly to their taxon. Most scops owls on Lombok were correctly classified although one was misclassified as O. tempestatis, and one O. tempestatis was misclassified as a scops owl from Lombok. In the PCA, three components with eigenvalues >1 were extracted from the data set. Each of the five groups differed significantly (P<0.001) from the other groups by the first principal component (one-way ANOVA, with Tukey’s post-hoc comparisons). All differences remained significant after Bonferroni correction. Bill length, wing length and tail length were the most important variables ( Table S5 ). Due to moult, feather abrasion or damage, all but one of the scops owls on Lombok had missing data for at least one variable. Because exclusion of either all variables with missing data or all specimens with missing data precluded meaningful comparisons, an intermediate approach was adopted that maximizes the sample size and number of variables. We excluded two variables (shortfalls of P9 and P10), and one species (O. kalidupae, for which only one specimen with complete morphometric data was available) from the dataset. The resulting dataset included 9 variables and 52 specimens, of which five were from Lombok. Morphometric data on the specimens from Lombok and other members of the O. magicus-O. manadensis complex are given in Table 2 . Morphometrics of the scops owls on Lombok differed significantly from those of O. m. albiventris (Sumbawa, Flores, Lembata [formerly Lomblen]), O. m. magicus, O. m. bouruensis, O. m. leucospilus (Moluccas), O. tempestatis (Wetar), O. manadensis manadensis (Sulawesi) and O. kalidupae (Kaledupa I.). The songs of 58 individuals were then included in a DFA with the six taxa as group categories. All characters passed the tolerance test, except DF1 (frequency drop from start to end) and DF2 (frequency range), which were excluded from the test. The DFA was highly significant (Wilks’ lambda <0.001; Chi-square 65 = 392.0; P<0.001). The variables most important in the discrimination were: frequency at end, frequency at 25% of song duration, slope from midpoint to end, frequency at 75% of song duration, and maximum frequency ( Table S4 ). The DFA led to a 100% correct classification of the individuals into the six groups. The first of the five discriminant functions accounted for 53.5% of the variation, and the second and third accounted for 26.0% and 10.5% of the variation ( Table S4 ). The groups differed significantly for all three principal components (one-way ANOVA, Table S3 ). Each of the six groups differed from the other groups by 1–2 principal components (Tukey’s post-hoc comparisons). All differences remained significant after Bonferroni correction. The recordings from Lombok differed significantly from O. cnephaeus in PC1; from O. lempiji in PC2; from O. rufescens in PC3; from O. m. manadensis in PC1 and PC2; and from O. collari in PC1. Depicted are the Eigenvectors of the first and second principal components of 15 acoustic variables measured for territorial songs of O. jolandae and five acoustically similar species: O. rufescens, O. cnephaeus, O. lempiji, O. collari and O. m. manadensis (N = 58). The songs of 58 individuals of six taxa with whistled songs were used in a PCA (O. cnephaeus, O. collari, O. lempiji, O. m. manadensis, O. rufescens, and the scops owls from Lombok). Three components with eigenvalues >1 were extracted from the data set ( Table S3 ). PC1 was represented by the frequency variables F1–8; PC2 was determined mostly by frequency drop from start to end, frequency range, slope from 25% to 75% of total song duration, and slope from midpoint to end; PC3 mostly by frequency range, time to maximum amplitude, time to maximum frequency, and total song duration. Plotting individuals of all taxa on PC1 versus PC2 revealed four non-overlapping clusters ( Figure 4 ). Three of these correspond to O. m. manadensis, O. collari and O. lempiji. A fourth cluster included all recordings of O. rufescens, O. cnephaeus, and the scops owls from Lombok. Songs from Lombok belong in the first category and consist of a single whistle without overtones, 0.25–0.35 sec in duration, with more or less constant pitch at 1000 Hz ( Audio Files S1 and S2 ). Some song notes show slight frequency modulation. Song characteristics of the Lombok population are given in Table 1 and are illustrated in Figure 3 . All recordings from Lombok differed clearly from those of the widespread O. magicus, which has a distinctive Raven-like croak ( Figure 3 , Audio Files S3 and S4 ). Recordings of O. m. albiventris from Flores, O. m. magicus from Ambon and Seram, O. m. bouruensis from Buru, and O. m. leucospilus from Halmahera all have a single note with broadband frequency. The songs recorded on Lombok differ significantly from those of other species of Otus with whistled songs in one (O. rufescens) to 11 (O. cnephaeus) variables ( Table 1 ). Depicted are songs of Otus jolandae (two different individuals), six other species with whistled songs (O. m. manadensis, O. collari, O. rufescens, O. mindorensis, O. cnephaeus, O. lempiji), three subspecies of O. magicus, and examples of Indonesian owls with songs consisting of a whistle with distinctlive overtones (O. silvicola), a double whistle (O. angelinae) and a series of multiple notes (O. alfredi). Each currently recognized species of scops owl in Peninsular Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines has a single territorial song type, and these songs may be grouped into five categories: (i) a single whistle without overtones (O. cnephaeus, O. collari, O. lempiji, O. manadensis manadensis, O. rufescens, O. mindorensis); (ii) a single or multiple dog- or Raven-like (Corvus corax) barks (O. beccarii, O. enganensis, O. fuliginosus, O. magicus); (iii) a whistle with distinctive overtones (O. mantananensis, O. silvicola); (iv) a double whistle (O. angelinae, O. longicornis, O. mirus, O. spilocephalus); (v) a series of multiple notes (O. alfredi, O. brookii, O. manadensis mendeni, O. megalotis, O. mentawi, O. sagittatus, O. sulaensis, O. sunia, O. umbra). Examples of each of these categories of songs are shown in Figure 3 . Discussion Our results show that the population of scops owls on Lombok differs vocally from all other known species of Otus. Its song differs dramatically from those of the different subspecies of O. magicus, including that of O. m. albiventris to which the Lombok population had been assigned by all previous authors. Ironically, the first clues that the Lombok Otus song differs from that of O. magicus albiventris were already present in the original report on A. Everett’s specimens. Hartert [31], who reported on Everett’s field work, noted that ”[t]he cry is a clear but not very loud 'pwok,' like that of [O.] lempiji, but somewhat different in tone”. This is a correct transcription of the song of the owls we recorded on Lombok and is inconsistent with the barking song of O. magicus. Photographs of the calling owls (Figure 1) show finely barred belly feathers consistent with specimens collected by A. Everett on Lombok in 1896 and different from those of O. m. albiventris (see diagnosis below). Thus, both songs and morphology suggest that our observations and sound recordings of scops owls on Lombok are of the same taxon as that collected by A. Everett. Interestingly, the song of the scops owls on Lombok is more similar to those of O. rufescens and O. cnephaeus than to those of any member of the O. magicus/O. manadensis complex. Despite the similarities in vocalizations, O. rufescens and O. cnephaeus are morphologically very different from the scops owls on Lombok, and these three species are likely not closely related. Taxonomic studies may lead to incorrect conclusions if non-homologous vocalizations are compared. The acoustic repertoire of most owls in the Indo-Malayan region and Wallacea is poorly known. However, our observations strongly suggest that the vocalizations of the Lombok population represent the territorial song. First, the Lombok owls strongly responded to playback of their song by calling back and by flying towards the speaker and displaying above the speaker. These observations are similar to the responses to playback of conspecific songs that we observed in numerous other species in Indonesia and elsewhere (e.g. O. magicus on Flores, Buru, Seram and Halmahera, O. manadensis manadensis on Sulawesi, O. manadensis mendeni on Banggai, and O. sulaensis on Taliabu). Second, the vocalizations of the Lombok Otus are a pure note which is loud, repetitive, easily located and given from prominent perches, characteristics which are a general feature of territorial songs in owls and nightjars [13], [32]. We conclude that the Lombok scops owls represent a unique lineage, perhaps most closely allied to O. magicus albiventris of Sumbawa (only circa 13.5 km east of Lombok), Flores and Lembata, which it closely resembles morphologically. The seven specimens of the Lombok scops owl show dramatically less individual variation than any of the other taxa examined, suggesting a small founder population, perhaps related to a catastrophic eruption of the still active Gunung Rinjani volcano. We found no evidence for the existence of any other species of scops owl on Lombok, nor did Everett’s workers during several months of field work on the island [31]. The type locality of albiventris is Flores, and albiventris thus remains the valid name for the population of O. magicus on Sumbawa, Flores and Lembata. Otus scops obsti Eck, 1973 was described from a single specimen from Java, collected by Wolf Kurt von Schierbrand. The specimen was said to belong to the ‘manadensis’ group [33]. However, no population of the O. magicus/O. manadensis group is known from Java despite extensive collections made in the 1900s (e.g. by the Bartels family). Based on our examination of photographs of the type of obsti, we conclude that this specimen is not a representative of the Lombok population, and differs strongly from the latter in both the pattern and colouration of upper- and underparts (see diagnosis below). Resolution of the true identity of the type of obsti probably requires molecular analysis, and is outside the scope of this paper. The scops owls on Lombok represent a previously undescribed species, which we name: Otus jolandae sp. nov. urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:784483E9-71DB-4​071-9B58-A37FA3075116. Holotype (Figure S1). BMNH 1897.11.1.55. Lombok, 1500 ft, male, collected by A. Everett, May 1896. Label data: iris golden yellow, bill brown, feet dull ochraceous. Previously assigned to Pisorhina albiventris [31], Scops albiventris (label data), or Otus magicus albiventris [34]. Paratypes. BMNH 1955.6 N20.3869. N. Lombok, male, collected by A. Everett, June 1896 (Figure S1). BMNH 1897.11.1.56, N. Lombok, female, collected by A. Everett, June 1896. AMNH 629939 Lombok I. 1,500 ft. male, collected by A. Everett, May 1896. AMNH 629940 N. Lombok I. 2,000 ft., male, collected by a native collector for A. Everett, July 1896. AMNH 629941 N. Lombok I., female, collected by a native collector for A. Everett, June 1896. AMNH 629942 N. Lombok I. 2,000 ft., female, collected by a native collector for A. Everett, July 1896. Diagnosis: Morphology Otus jolandae is much like O. m. albiventris, but differs by: (i) upperparts less boldly patterned with Mummy Brown shaft streaks, short narrow Mummy Brown bars and paler warm brown bars (in O. m. albiventris the warm brown bars are usually paler, creating a more strongly patterned back, giving a somewhat spotted or barred look); (ii) crown, nape and upperparts dark cinnamon brown (most O. m. albiventris have a colder greyer tone); (iii) warm cinnamon breast is darker, with narrow and irregular white and Mummy Brown bars and Mummy Brown shaft streaks (in O. m. albiventris, breast feathers usually have more white bars and/or white patches of variable size, resulting in paler breast); (iv) belly feathers usually with more fine dark barring and white patches only on basal half of feathers, except between legs (in O. m. albiventris belly feathers usually have less fine dark barring and larger white patches, resulting in a paler belly). Otus jolandae differs from O. tempestatis by: (i) upperparts more boldly marked with broader dark shaft streaks and bars (in O. tempestatis, upperparts are plainer with narrower dark streaks and bars [one red morph female, AMNH 629960, however, has bold blackish shaft streaks which contrast sharply with rufous upperparts]); (ii) crown, nape and upperparts dark cinnamon brown (in O. tempestatis either cold grey-brown [grey morph] or dark rufous (red morph]); (iii) dark breast contrasting strongly with whitish belly (O. tempestatis has more uniform underparts with much less contrast between breast and belly [in grey morph, breast and belly buffy white to buffy grey, with blackish brown shaft streaks and narrow wavy bars, the shaft streaks narrower on belly; in red morph, breast pale to dark cinnamon with broad blackish shaft streaks, and the belly with narrower black shaft streaks and pale cinnamon and white bars, the cinnamon bars with narrow dark brown edges]). Otus jolandae differs from the Moluccan forms of Otus magicus (O. m. magicus, O. m. bouruensis, O. m. leucospilus, and O. m. morotensis) by: (i) smaller size (Table 2); (ii) tarsometatarsus fully feathered to base of toes (distal part of tarsometatarsus bare in O. m. magicus [6–10 mm bare on anterior side of tarsometatarsus], O. m. bouruensis [2–8 mm bare], O. m. leucospilus [3–16 mm bare], and O. m. morotensis [2 mm bare]). Otus jolandae further differs from O. m. magicus and O. m. bouruensis by: (iii) crown and upperparts less boldly patterned due to darker, warm brown bars and narrower Mummy Brown bars (in O. m. magicus and O. m. bouruensis dark bars on crown and upperparts are broader, and pale bars are paler, creating a strongly patterned back); (iv) smaller white markings on greater and median upper wing coverts; (v) darker breast, which contrasts more with pale belly (more uniform underparts in O. m. magicus and O. m. bouruensis, with little or no contrast between breast and belly; (vi) breast and belly feathers usually with narrower Mummy Brown shaft streaks; (vii) breast ground colour warm cinnamon, with narrow white bars and small white spots, as well as Mummy Brown shaft streaks and bars (in O. m. magicus [grey morph only] and O. m. bouruensis ground colour of breast is much paler [whiter], the feathers with larger white bars and spots, as well as Mummy Brown shaft streaks and bars; red morph O. m. magicus underparts pale cinnamon [darker and browner on breast] with broad Mummy Brown shaft streaks and narrow bars, the breast with small white bars and spots, and the belly barred with white). In addition, O. jolandae differs from O. m. bouruensis by: (viii) lack of pale collar (O. m. bouruensis has a band of dark feathers with variable white patches forming a pale collar around upper back, lower hindneck and sides of neck); (ix) darker throat and ear coverts (whiter ground colour with finer dark barring on O. m. bouruensis); (x) belly feathers more strongly barred (in O. m. bouruensis, belly barring sparse, widely spaced and less conspicuous). Otus jolandae also differs from O. m. leucospilus by: (iii) dark cinnamon brown upperparts, ranging only to slightly paler cinnamon brown (similar in O. m. leucospilus, but ranges to paler cinnamon brown to cold grey-brown, often more strongly patterned with paler spots); (iv) throat darker buffy white to cinnamon buff with dark bars (paler throat buffy white with finer dark bars and/or streaks in O. m. leucospilus); (v) warm cinnamon ground colour of breast (in O. m. leucospilus ground colour of breast ranges from similar to brighter cinnamon to paler cinnamon to rusty brown to buffy grey); (vi) darker breast (ranges from similar to much paler because of larger white patches on breast feathers on many O. m. leucospilus, reducing contrast between breast and paler belly); (vii) paler belly, more clearly demarcated from dark breast (belly colour on O. m. leucospilus ranges from similar to darker and contrasting less with breast). Otus jolandae further differs from O. m. morotensis by: (iii) outer webs of row of pale scapulars white to pale cinnamon (dark cinnamon, with small white and blackish markings near tips in O. m. morotensis); (iv) belly, undertail coverts and legs with white ground colour and contrast between pale belly and dark breast (in O. m. morotensis except for pale cinnamon throat, underparts uniformly dark, i.e. entirely dark cinnamon [including undertail coverts and legs], darker and browner on breast, with broad Mummy Brown shaft streaks and narrow short bars, as well as a few pale cinnamon bars on breast, and narrower Mummy Brown shaft streaks and short bars, and pale cinnamon bars on belly and under tail coverts, the tarsi with Mummy Brown markings). Otus jolandae differs from O. kalidupae by: (i) smaller size (Table 2); (ii) dark cinnamon brown crown, nape and upperparts (colder grey-brown in O. kalidupae); (iii) somewhat broader dark shaft streaks and bars on crown, nape and upperparts; (iv) bold black tips to outer web of pale row of scapulars (tips mottled dark brown and buffy grey in O. kalidupae); (v) strong contrast between dark breast and whitish belly (buffy grey breast and belly more uniform in O. kalidupae, the belly only somewhat paler than breast); (vi) broader, bolder dark shaft streaks and bars on belly (dark shaft streaks fine and dark bars faint on O. kalidupae); (vii) buffy to rusty buff tarsal feathers with indistinct brownish bars/spots (dark buff with distinct narrow dark brown wavy bars in O. kalidupae). Very similar to O. m. manadensis, but O. jolandae differs from O. m. manadensis by: (i) crown, nape and upperparts vary only from dark cinnamon brown to somewhat paler cinnamon brown (range from similar dark cinnamon brown to paler cinnamon brown to colder brownish grey in O. manadensis); (ii) warm cinnamon breast, with Mummy Brown shaft streaks and narrow and irregular white and Mummy Brown bars, is often darker and contrasts more with whitish belly (warm cinnamon to buffy grey breast of O.manadensis has similar Mummy Brown bars and shaft streaks, but often broader white bars and larger white patches giving the breast a paler appearance, which contrasts less with paler belly); (iii) belly with extensive white patches on basal parts of feathers (less extensive white patches in most O. manadensis, resulting in a darker belly which contrasts less with darker breast). Otus jolandae differs from O. lempiji and O. cnephaeus by: (i) ear tufts dark cinnamon brown with broad blackish shaft streak and narrow blackish bars and some dark rufous on inner vane and base (in O. lempiji and O. cnephaeus ear tufts buffy white to dark buff, with blackish markings); (ii) crown and nape dark cinnamon brown with narrow to broad blackish shaft streaks and narrow blackish bars (in O. lempiji and O. cnephaeus crown and nape black to blackish brown [feathers dark buff to brown with blackish shaft streak, bars and markings, and broad black to blackish brown tip] with some buffy brown markings); (iii) lack of buff nuchal collar; (iv) dark cinnamon brown upperparts (colder grey-brown in most O. lempiji and O. cnaephaeus, usually with some variable black markings on upper back below buff collar); (v) strong contrast between dark breast and pale belly, both with bold dark shaft streaks and narrow dark bars (in O. lempiji and O. cnephaeus, underparts [breast and belly greyish buff to dull grayish cinnamon to dull dark cinnamon] plainer and more uniform, with little or no contrast between breast and belly, which have blackish shaft streaks, but fine and inconspicuous dark bars); (vi) feathering on tarsometatarsus only reaches base of toes (in O. lempiji and O. cnephaeus feathering on tarsometatarsus extends over extreme base of toes [1–4 mm]). Otus jolandae differs from O. rufescens in: (i) larger size (wing >140 mm in O. jolandae; <130 mm in O. rufescens); (ii) crown, nape and upperparts dark cinnamon brown with blackish shaft streaks and bars (uniform deep rufescent brown with dark buff arrow-shaped markings, lacking dark streaks and bars in O. rufescens,); (iii) bill dark (pale in O. rufescens); (iv) facial disc barred white, warm buff and Sepia (plain rufous in O. rufescens); (v) breast and belly strongly patterned with dark shaft streaks and bars, the dark breast contrasting strongly with whitish belly (in O. rufescens underparts uniform rusty buff to dark cinnamon [somewhat paler on belly and under tail coverts], sparsely spotted dark brown and lacking dark streaks and bars); (vi) dark bars/spots on tarsal feathers (uniform pale buff to pale cinnamon in O. rufescens, with only a few faint darker markings). Otus jolandae differs from O. alfredi in: (i) patterned dark cinnamon brown crown, nape and upperparts with dark shaft streaks and bars (crown, nape and upperparts plain dark rufous in O. alfredi, the feathers of hindneck and upper back with subterminal buffy white marks); (ii) outer vane of pale row of scapulars white to pale cinnamon with blackish tip (white with blackish tip and broad diagonal dark rufous-brown band with blackish border splitting the white patch in O. alfredi); (iii) rusty buff to white bars on outer vane of outer primaries (only broader and more widely spaced white notches on O. alfredi); (iv) prominent banding on tertials and upper side of tail (banding faint and inconspicuous in O. alfredi); (v) longer ear tufts; (vi) bill dark (bill yellow to orange-yellow in O. alfredi); (vii) rictal bristles with whitish to buffy bases (rufous bases in O. alfredi); (viii) facial disc barred white, warm buff and Sepia (plain rufous in O. alfredi); (ix) sides of lower throat and distal ear coverts white with narrow warm buff subterminal band and broad Sepia terminal band, forming white and Sepia border to facial disc (in O. alfredi distal ear coverts dark rufous, and feathers of sides of throat white with broad terminal band mixed dark rufous and Sepia); (x) conspicuously patterned underparts with Mummy Brown shaft streaks and bars on breast and belly (plainer, more uniform underparts without dark shaft streaks and bars in O. alfredi, the breast dark rufous with some wavy white and narrow brown barring, and the belly paler and duller buffy white with vague irregular pale rusty brown bars and narrow wavy dark brown bars); (xi) dark bars or spots on buffy white to rusty buff legs (no dark bars or spots on buff to cinnamon legs on O. alfredi). Otus jolandae differs from O. silvicola by: (i) much smaller size (wing <157 mm in O. jolandae; 202–251 mm in O. silvicola, [3]); (ii) crown, nape and upperparts dark cinnamon brown with narrow dark shaft streaks and bars (in O. silvicola upperparts colder greyish brown to brownish grey, with broader dark shaft streaks and bars); (iii) more contrast between darker, more cinnamon breast and whitish belly (in O. silvicola, pale greyish cinnamon to pale buffy grey breast only a little darker than sides of belly with white center of belly); (iv) feathering on tarsometatarsus reaches but does not cover base of toes (in O. silvicola feathering covers base of toes). Otus jolandae differs from the type of Otus scops obsti by: (i) upperparts with warm brown ground colour (cold brown in obsti); (ii) crown and upperparts less boldly patterned due to darker, warm brown bars and narrower Mummy Brown bars (in obsti, dark bars on crown and upperparts are broader, and pale bars are paler, creating a strongly patterned back); (iii) breast warmer buff, rather clearly demarcated from much whiter belly (not clearly demarcated in obsti); (iv) feathers of belly without broad dark brown sidebars or dark brown diamond-shaped markings (present in obsti). Diagnosis: Vocalizations The song of O. jolandae differs from those of all other species of Otus in Indonesia, South East Asia and the Philippines, except O. m. manadensis, O. collari, O. cnephaeus, O. lempiji, O. rufescens and O. mindorensis, by consisting of a single whistle without pronounced overtones. The song of O. jolandae differs from those of O. m. manadensis and O. collari by significantly lower frequency (variables F1–F8, Table 2) and shorter total song duration. The song of O. jolandae further differs from that of O. m. manadensis by significantly shorter time to maximum frequency, smaller frequency drop from start to end, and by having a (more pronounced) frequency drop from midpoint to end. The song of O. jolandae differs from that of O. cnephaeus by significantly higher frequency (variables F1–F8, Table 2), longer total song duration, longer time to maximum amplitude, and longer time to maximum frequency. The song of O. jolandae differs from that of O. lempiji by significantly higher frequency (variables F1, F3, F4 and F8, Table 2), longer total song duration, smaller frequency drop from start to end, narrower frequency range, and by lacking a pronounced increase in frequency between 25% to 75% of total song duration and from midpoint to end. The song of O. jolandae differs from that of O. rufescens by significantly shorter total song duration. The song of O. jolandae differs from that of O. mindorensis in being monosyllabic (O. mindorensis has a distinctive di-syllabic song note) (Figure 3). Description of the Holotype Head. Chin and throat feathers white, wavy-barred Mummy Brown. White bars slightly broader than brown bars. Feathers of forehead white, barred Mummy Brown to black. Supercilium to above eye, feathers white with narrow Mummy Brown edges. Crown feathers and ear tufts Tawny-Olive with broad, dark brown (Sepia*) bars and stripe along shaft. Some ear tuft feathers with broad warm buff (between Cinnamon and Tawny-Olive) patches. Nape slightly warmer coloured than crown due to more extensive warm buff (between Cinnamon and Tawny-Olive) patches on nape feathers. Rictal bristles white proximally, blackish distally. Lores and ear coverts wavy-barred white, warm buff and Sepia*. Distal ear coverts, and lower throat feathers white with narrow warm buff subterminal band and broad Sepia* tip, forming white and dark brown border to facial disc. Sides of neck wavy-barred Mummy Brown, buff and white. Upperparts. Feathers of mantle (i.e. upper back), back and rump predominantly warm brown (between Ochraceous-Tawny and Cinnamon-Brown) with Mummy Brown stripe along shaft and fine and indistinct Mummy Brown bars. Uppertail-coverts slightly paler than back and rump, with Tawny-Olive rather than warm brown ground colour. Scapulars as upperparts. A single row of scapulars has Sepia* shaft streak, white outer vane with triangular Sepia* tip bordered by a narrow, warm buff band, and whitish buff inner vane with warm buff tip, narrowly barred with Sepia*. Underparts. Breast feathers warm (rusty) buff with Mummy Brown shaft streak and narrow and irregular white and Mummy Brown bars. Upper belly feathers with Mummy Brown stripe along shaft and white, cinnamon and Mummy Brown bars. Feathers on lower belly and vent with Mummy Brown shaft streak and white and cinnamon patches on proximal part, distal part narrowly barred white and Mummy Brown. Undertail coverts white with Mummy Brown shaft streak and broad cinnamon and narrow Mummy Brown bars. Leg feathered to base of toes. Feathers on tarsometatarsus buff becoming whiter distally, with narrow indistinct Mummy Brown wavy bars. Feathers on tibiotarsus off white, mixed with buff, and with indistinct brownish spots/bars. Wing. Outer vane of outer primaries with broad pale (whitish to dull cinnamon) bars, narrow Mummy Brown bars and broad Tawny-Olive bars. Pale bars become more dull cinnamon (i.e. less white) towards tip. Outer vane of inner primaries similar to those of outer primaries, but pale bars darker, dull cinnamon. Inner vane of primaries dark brown with irregular poorly demarcated Tawny-Olive bars, the innermost ones also with rusty buff notches and patches proximally. Secondaries and tertials dark brown (close to Sayal Brown) vermiculated Mummy Brown with paler, Tawny-Olive bars. Greater, median and lesser upper-wingcoverts cinnamon with dense irregular Mummy Brown barring. Some great upper-wingcoverts with pale, whitish outer edges. Some median coverts with small white markings (1–2 poorly demarcated bars) on outer flag. Visible part of wing lining dark brown with cinnamon buff irregular bars and markings. Tips of longer primary coverts mostly cinnamon buff. Axillaries buffy white. Tail. Upper side of R5 irregularly barred and vermiculated Mummy Brown, Dresden Brown and Tawny-Olive, with bars becoming narrower and more indistinct towards tip. Upper side of R1–R4 with distinct and broad Mummy Brown and Tawny-Olive bars. Variation in the Type Series Male BM 1955.6N20.3869 differs from holotype in: (i) feathers on breast and belly with narrower longitudinal Mummy Brown stripe along shaft; (ii) lower belly from between legs to vent white; (iii) feathers on tarsometatarsus more distinctly barred brown; and (iv) inner vane of P9 dark brown with irregular and poorly demarcated Tawny-Olive bars. Male AMNH 629939 differs from holotype in: buffy white chin and throat with narrow dark wavy bars. Male AMNH 629940 differs from holotype in: (i) cinnamon buff chin and throat with narrow dark wavy bars; and (ii) rictal bristles buff proximally. Female BMNH 97.11.1.56 differs from from holotype and male BM 1955.6 N20.3869 in: (i) crown feathers and ear tufts with narrower, dark brown (Sepia*) bars and stripe along shaft; (ii) breast feathers paler, and less extensively warm (rusty) buff; and (iii) white markings on some median coverts larger, forming round or oval spots. Female AMNH 629941 differs from holotype in buffy white chin and throat with narrow dark wavy bars. Female AMNH 629942 differs from holotype in: (i) scattered white to buffy white juvenile feathers with Mummy Brown spots and bars on crown and nape; (ii) rictal bristles buff proximally; and (iii) buff chin and throat with narrow dark wavy bars. Generic Placement Otus jolandae clearly belongs in Otus rather than Bubo, Glaucidium, Athene or Ninox on account of its combination of small size, distinctive ear-tufts, facial disc, short rounded wings, and short tail. Distribution The seven specimens collected by A. Everett and his personnel lack precise locality data, although label data indicate that some specimens were collected in northern Lombok. Modern records documented by sound recordings are from five localities in western, central and northern Lombok (Figure 5): (i) Senggigi, western Lombok, at 25 m elevation, 22–27 August 2011 (J. van der Laan); (ii) between ½ km NW to 1 km NNW of Sesaot, at 200–400 m elevation on the SW slope of Gunung Rinjani (circa 1 km west and outside the SW boundary of Gunung Rinjani NP), 7 September 2003 (B.F. King); (iii) Jeruk Manis, near the village of Kembang Kuning, at 900 m elevation in Gunung Rinjani NP, 4 September 2003 (G. Sangster, J.A. Luksenburg); (iv) near Sapit, at 900–1000 m elevation, 3 September 2003 (G. Sangster, J.A. Luksenburg) and 27 August 2008 (P. Verbelen, B. Demeulemeester); (v) Senaru, at 500–700 m, and above Senaru along the trail within the forest of the Gunung Rinjani National Park, at 900–1350 m elevation, 28–30 August 2008 (P. Verbelen, B. Demeulemeester). We suspect that O. jolandae occurs throughout the forested parts of Lombok, perhaps down to sea level. Efforts should be made to determine the presence of scops owls in western Sumbawa, where forested habitat can be found at elevations up to 1600 m. The study skins from central Sumbawa (Gunung Tambora) that we have examined all refer to O. m. albiventris. Otus jolandae was not heard during searches of Gunung Tambora, Sumbawa by Philippe Verbelen in September 2008. Verbelen also conducted a series of interviews with Sumbawan locals in areas comparable to those in Lombok where O. jolandae was found. With one exception, none of the locals recognised the songs of O. jolandae from playback of recordings made on Lombok. One man recognized the song of O. jolandae but he was an immigrant from Lombok who knew the song only from Lombok and had never heard it on Sumbawa. Habitat and Biology Otus jolandae were noted calling from mid-elevation (15–20 m) trees, either within solid forest (Jeruk Manis in Gunung Rinjani NP, north of Sapit in Gunung Rinjani NP, Figure 6) or from patches of trees in more open landscape (Sesaot, Sapit). However, a recording from Senggigi was made in secondary forest with low elevation (7–9 m) palm trees (J. van der Laan in litt.). We recorded O. jolandae at elevations from 200–1350 m, but Jan van der Laan’s recording at Senggigi shows that it occurs at least as low as 25 m. Everett’s specimens were collected from “the plains up to about 2000 feet [ = 600 m] above the sea”, although the owls were heard as high up the mountains as 4,500 feet [ = 1350 m] [31]. In September 2003, the owls started calling at dusk between 18:30 and 18:40 and continued after dark. In August 2011, one bird was heard calling at 02:30 (J. van der Laan in litt.). Otus jolandae has been heard calling in May-July [31], August (P. Verbelen, B. Demeulemeester) and September (G. Sangster, B. F. King), thus probably territorial during much of the year, as in other tropical owls [35], [36]. Conservation Status In the areas where we observed O. jolandae, we found it to be common, and up to four individuals could be heard calling from a single spot. We heard O. jolandae in undisturbed forest but also in degraded forest, and along quiet roads. Our observations near Sesaot and Sapit with scattered tree patches, and Jan van der Laan’s record in secondary forest at Senggigi, suggest that O. jolandae is not dependent on closed primary forest. The species is present in Mount Rinjani NP which covers 413 km2 and altitudes ranging from 300–3,726 m. Future studies should determine the exact distribution, elevational range and population density of O. jolandae on Lombok, and whether the species occurs throughout the lowlands where extensive forest destruction and cultivation has taken place since the type series was obtained in 1896. Very little lowland forest remains on Lombok, although Batu Gendang forest in Sekotong Tengah (southwest Lombok) still contains stretches of potentially suitable forest. Etymology Named after GS’s wife, Dr Jolanda A. Luksenburg, a biologist at George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA, who co-discovered the species in 2003 and contributed much to the field work that led to the description of Caprimulgus meesi [21]. Common Name We propose the English common name ‘Rinjani Scops Owl’ and the Indonesian name ‘Celepuk Rinjani’. Both names refer to Gunung Rinjani, the second highest volcano in Indonesia and Lombok’s most impressive physical feature. Previous Records of Scops Owls on Lombok Very few records of scops owls are known from Lombok, despite several collecting expeditions visiting suitable habitat and elevations. Alfred Russell Wallace did not record any Otus on Lombok during his lengthy visits in 1856 [37], nor did Adolphe G. Vorderman in 1894 [38], William Doherty in June 1896 [39], Bernhard Rensch in 1927 [40] and Nagamichi Kuroda in 1929 [41]. Except for the type series collected in May to July 1896 [31], only two observers had recorded scops owls on Lombok prior to our field work in 2003: an individual spotlighted near the losmen at Tetebatu on 14–15 December 1989 [42] and several heard calling (a single-note call) in the northern foothills of Gunung Rinjani, at Pos II (1550 m) along the trail from Senaru to the crater rim, on 14–15 October 1991 (R.W.R.J. Dekker in litt.). Although in both cases no sound recordings were made, it is likely that these referred to O. jolandae. Biogeography Otus jolandae is the first bird species known to be endemic to Lombok [43], although three endemic subspecies are currently recognised: Pericrocotus flammeus exul Wallace, 1864, Dicaeum maugei neglectum Hartert, 1897, and Dicaeum trochileum stresemanni Rensch, 1928 [22]. In addition, Trichoglossus haematodus mitchellii G.R. Gray, 1859 is shared only with Bali, and several other forms are shared only with Sumbawa and Flores [22]. The status of the birds of Lombok has received little attention from taxonomists and the taxonomic validity and rank of the endemic subspecies have not been evaluated recently. Lombok may have been the only island within the chain of islands from Sumatra to Flores that has remained isolated during glacial maxima in the Pleistocene. At glacial maxima, Bali was contiguous with Java, and Sumbawa was connected through Komodo and Rinca with Flores, leaving Lombok isolated from both [44], [45]. The distribution of scops owls within the chain mirrors this pattern, with O. lempiji on Sumatra, Java and Bali, O. jolandae on Lombok, and O. silvicola and O. magicus albiventris on Sumbawa and Flores (O. m. albiventris also occurs further east on Lembata). However, current distribution limits may be a poor reflection of historical distribution patterns, and extinction may have played a role in shaping distribution patterns of owls on the Lesser Sundas. For instance, Kusch [46] has found fossil material of Bubo sumatranus on Lombok, where the species is not currently present. ||||| After hiding in plain sight for more than a century, a small Indonesian owl has finally been revealed for what it is: a previously unrecognized species in the genus Otus, betrayed not by its appearance but by its song. The newly named Otus jolandae, a scops owl, lives on Lombok island and resembles the owls living on the islands next door. But O. jolandae doesn’t sing the same tune as its neighbor, Otus magicus. The owl’s nocturnal whistling call suggested that the bird living in the foothills of Indonesia’s second-tallest volcano was actually a different species, researchers report today in PLoS ONE. “Scops owls are small, nocturnal forest inhabitants, whose presence in an area is very easily missed unless they are calling,” said Per Alstrom, a taxonomist at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, who was not a member of the owl-finding team. “The authors have done very thorough analyses of both morphology and vocalizations, and found the new scops owl to be significantly different from all other known species.” The owl had been lumped in with O. magicus since at least 1896; that was when British naturalist Alfred Everett, a civil servant who had been stationed in Borneo, collected several of the birds and sent the specimens to museums. For more than a hundred years, the owl’s true identity was a mystery — until 2003, when taxonomist George Sangster and his wife Jolanda were visiting Lombok’s forests. Sangster, a graduate student at Sweden’s Stockholm University, was there to record the songs of a different bird, the nightjar. “On the very first night, just a few hours after my wife and I arrived on Lombok, we heard the vocalizations of an owl that we were not familiar with,” Sangster said. “Initially, we thought it was perhaps a previously known species from Java and Bali, that for some reason had been overlooked on Lombok.” Sangster recorded the owl and played its songs into the forest. When the owls approached, he saw that they looked nothing like the owls on Java or Bali. Instead, they resembled O. magicus, which lives on the islands to Lombok’s east. But something was wrong. “Its whistle sounded completely different from the raven-like croak of that species,” Sangster recalled. “At home, I learned that no one had given a name yet to the scops owls on Lombok, which was the first time I realized that this might indeed be an entirely new species.” Otus jolandae Otus magicus albiventris Independently, a few days later, Ben King, a study coauthor and research associate at the American Museum of Natural History, also recorded the owl. Additional recordings from various spots on the island captured the same strange song, a tune familiar to Lombok residents. But people living on nearby islands had never heard it — instead, they were familiar with the barking owl call. When Sangster’s colleague, Philippe Verbelen, went looking for the whistling owl on nearby islands in 2008, he came up empty. And the whistling owl was the only scops owl found on Lombok. “This suggested that only one species occurs on each island,” Sangster said. When the team compared the new owl with museum specimens — such as those Everett had collected — to O. magicus, they found only very subtle differences in color on the back, breast, and belly. That makes sense, said Niels Krabbe, an ornithologist at the University of Copenhagen. Owls in the genus Otus “communicate vocally and have rarely evolved plumage characteristics for signalling. Their plumage coloration seems to serve no other purpose than camouflage,” Krabbe said. The results of DNA sequencing, which Sangster intends to publish later this year, also confirm that O. jolandae is a different species. Now, the team thinks there are two types of owl living on Lombok: the new species, which Sangster named after his wife, and a type of barn owl. Identifying birds based on behavior — and not just appearances or genetics — is helping taxonomists undo much of the lumping together of species that occurred in the past. “We’re realizing there’s a lot more diversity in plants and animals than we might have expected, just based on their physical appearance,” said Wesley Hochachka, an ornithologist at Cornell University’s Lab of Ornithology said. “There’s a fairly time-honored tradition in accepting that, at least as the first line of evidence, differences in vocal behavior are good markers of differences in species.” (Recordings: George Sangster)

Researchers have identified a new owl species—improbably, more than 100 years after it was first discovered, reports Wired. The Rinjani scops owl, from the Indonesian island of Lombok, was thought to be a member of Otus magicus since 1896, when a British naturalist collected several specimens. But a visiting taxonomist who heard the Rinjani's call in 2003 realized it sounded totally different than the O. magicus. "It is a wake-up call for ornithologists: there is still much to learn," says a co-author of the study that identified the species. Further investigation revealed subtle differences in color between the species, and a DNA sequencing confirmed the Rinjani scops owl was a different species—which has since been named Otus jolandae. “We’re realizing there’s a lot more diversity in plants and animals than we might have expected, just based on their physical appearance,” said one ornithologist. You can read the original scientific paper in full at PLoS ONE.

GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking, management, and accountability from activities and processes to the results and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable information on the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been provided since federal agencies began implementing GPRA. Under GPRA, annual performance plans are to clearly inform the Congress and the public of the (1) annual performance goals for agencies’ major programs and activities, (2) measures that will be used to gauge performance, (3) strategies and resources required to achieve the performance goals, and (4) procedures that will be used to verify and validate performance information. These annual plans, issued soon after transmittal of the President’s budget, provide a direct linkage between an agency’s longer- term goals and mission and day-to-day activities. Annual performance reports are to subsequently report on the degree to which performance goals were met. The issuance of the agencies’ performance reports, due by March 31 of each year, represents a new and potentially more substantive phase in the implementation of GPRA—the opportunity to assess federal agencies’ actual performance for the prior fiscal year and to consider what steps are needed to improve performance, and reduce costs in the future.To meet the reporting requirements for this year, Commerce issued a combined performance report and performance plan. According to Commerce, its basic mission is to promote job creation and improve living standards for all Americans through economic growth, technological competitiveness, and sustainable development. The component agencies that are accountable for the selected key outcomes covered in this report are responsible for providing assistance to distressed communities; forecasting and warning the public about severe weather, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods; supporting export policies that affect millions of domestic jobs and monitoring hundreds of international trade agreements; and helping stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and providing technical assistance to Russia and newly emerging countries concerning export controls. Activities not covered by the selected outcomes include supporting the domestic and international management of living marine resources, including overseeing 2,000,000 square miles of ocean and 300 marine species; fostering telecommunications policies that promote economic and technical advancement; protecting patents, trademarks, and intellectual property rights; and conducting the decennial census, demographic and economic censuses, and over 200 annual surveys. While Commerce shares responsibilities for these functions with a number of other federal departments and agencies, it has a lead role in one area—promoting economic development in distressed areas. This section discusses our analysis of Commerce’s performance in achieving selected key outcomes and the strategies—particularly those related to strategic human capital management and information technology—that it has in place for achieving these outcomes. On the basis of Commerce’s report, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) made good progress in achieving its two performance goals related to this key selected outcome: (1) to create jobs and private enterprise in economically distressed communities and (2) to build local capacity to achieve and sustain economic growth. In March 1999, we reported that measuring job creation that results from economic development programs is problematic. EDA reports that it adjusted its targets related to creating and retaining permanent jobs based on our report, resulting in conservative targets. In addition, EDA uses multiple measures to assess its performance related to this outcome. Among the achievements that EDA reports were creating or retaining over twice as many jobs in distressed areas as planned, obtaining millions of dollars in private sector investments in distressed communities ahead of schedule, obtaining more state and local funds than anticipated, awarding a larger portion of its grants to areas of highest distress, and decreasing the processing time for grant applications. The one performance measure for which the target was not met was the percentage of Economic Development District and Indian tribe planning grantees whose Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies were submitted on time and were acceptable. Commerce explained that this target is not based on statutory requirements and was originally an estimate. In addition, some delays may have stemmed from new legislation that changed the process for some grantees. EDA said that it is analyzing trends to determine if adjustments need to be made to future targets. EDA presents clear and reasonable strategies for the future, which include the following: providing grants for economic development projects in distressed providing grants to implement economic adjustment strategies in communities that experience sudden losses of jobs and severe economic distress, strengthening and expanding its strategic planning and investment activities through a network of regional planning organizations, and disseminating information on economic development issues affecting distressed communities to entities involved in helping those communities. EDA said that it used program evaluations to develop valid performance measures, verify results, provide a more complete understanding of overall program performance, and improve program performance. EDA also identified specific program evaluations that it had used in the past, as well as evaluations that are currently under way. EDA reports that it plans to collaborate with other federal agencies on ways to evaluate and measure crosscutting activities to improve economic development assistance for distressed communities—a topic that was covered in our September 2000 report. For each of its performance measures, EDA describes the data source, as well as its data validation and verification efforts. In addition, EDA generally discusses data limitations. For example, for two measures related to the ratings that EDA receives from its clients, EDA states that this is the first year that data have been reported and that it will evaluate trends after more years of data are available. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) made limited progress in achieving its performance goal related to this outcome—to advance short-term warnings and forecasts. NOAA reported its fiscal year 2000 performance for this goal using measures such as the lead time and accuracy of forecasts and warnings. Specifically, NOAA met its targets for flash floods and winter storms that are covered by warnings. On the other hand, it did not issue warnings for flash floods, winter storms, and tornadoes with as much lead time as targeted and its false alarm rate for tornado warnings was higher than targeted. NOAA’s performance on one measure—the accuracy of warnings for hurricanes— was not applicable this past year because no hurricanes made landfall during the 2000 season. In some cases, NOAA’s performance stayed about the same as last year even though the target was not met for fiscal year 2000. For example, the reported accuracy for marine forecasts involving winds and waves remained at 50 percent, slightly below the target of 51 percent. Similarly, the reported lead time for severe weather warnings for flash floods increased from 41 minutes to 43 minutes, but fell short of the target of 55 minutes. In reporting on these measures, Commerce’s report offered explanations for its failure to meet targets, which often involved atypical weather conditions. For example, in explaining why it did not meet its three targets for tornado warnings, NOAA noted that the 2000 tornado season had few well-organized storm systems, resulting in fewer and weaker tornadoes that are harder to detect. Similarly, in explaining why it did not meet its target of 20 percent accuracy in 3-day precipitation forecasts, NOAA indicated that the past year had been relatively dry, a factor that can lower the accuracy score. In addition, NOAA noted that this measure was being used for the first time and, therefore, was considered a baseline for this measure. NOAA noted that improvements are difficult to observe on an annual basis and that historical trends show that the agency continues to improve the accuracy and lead time of warnings related to severe weather hazards. NOAA’s strategies for further improving its performance are clear and reasonable. These strategies include continuing its investments in research and new technologies, maintaining continuous satellite coverage, strengthening weather observing and prediction systems, and improving the dissemination of weather forecasts and warnings to the public and others. NOAA also stated that it uses annual program evaluations at its National Weather Service (NWS) field offices as part of its quality control to ensure the reliability of its data and products; however, it did not elaborate on the results of these evaluations. For each of its performance measures, NOAA describes the data source, as well as its data validation and verification efforts. In addition, NOAA generally discusses data limitations. For example, for its measure related to hurricane warnings, NOAA states that there is a large variability in the hurricane warning program due to sample sizes and types of storms. Our prior work drew attention to problems that NWS faced in developing and implementing weather-forecasting technologies. Because of these and other problems, we identified NWS’ efforts to modernize its critical weather systems as a high-risk area in our 1995, 1997, and 1999 high-risk series reports. We made a series of recommendations aimed at helping NWS improve its management of the modernization effort, and NWS has implemented many of those recommendations. Most recently, in January 2001, we removed NWS’ modernization effort from our high-risk list because of the progress NWS had made in addressing our recommendations and in implementing a critical information processing system. NWS is continuing to improve its modernization systems and has reported that these efforts are critical to its ability to improve warnings and forecasts over time. Commerce’s progress made toward ensuring that U.S. businesses have greater access to international markets is unclear for at least three reasons. First, most of the targets related to this outcome were not met and performance for those targets during fiscal year 2000 was lower than performance during fiscal year 1999. For example, the International Trade Administration (ITA) did not meet its target for the number of counseling sessions held with U.S. businesses and held about 20,000 fewer sessions in fiscal year 2000 than it held in fiscal year 1999. ITA stated that the number of counseling sessions did not reflect its level of success given the emphasis on using electronic means to communicate with U. S. firms, but ITA did not describe its efforts to communicate electronically. Also, ITA did not meet the target for the value of gross exports supported through advocacy efforts and reported that the dollar value was $8.9 billion for fiscal year 2000, as opposed to $9.8 billion for fiscal year 1999. Second, it is not clear whether ITA met its targets for two measures. Specifically, ITA reported that it met the original targets for the number of “new-to-market” and “new-to-export” firms. ITA explained that it had revised these targets upward in the fiscal year 2001 performance plan and did not meet the revised targets; however, ITA did not explain why it used the lower targets for this report. In addition, based on the same data, Commerce’s accountability report for fiscal year 2000 states that the target for the number of “new-to-market” firms was not met. Third, ITA reported that its ability to demonstrate future progress is hindered by the limitations of the measures that it uses. ITA reported that it faces inherent difficulties in quantifying its progress due to the reluctance of its business clients to volunteer proprietary information and the unanticipated shifts in the world economy. In addition, ITA faces the challenge of isolating its contribution to U.S. trade objectives from that of U.S. industry and other U.S. agencies. While ITA met its targets for the number of antidumping and countervailing duty cases processed and for the dollar value of market openings, it is discontinuing use of the dollar value of market openings because it does not directly relate to ITA’s success in enforcing trade laws and agreements. ITA also plans to discontinue using the number of counseling sessions held with U.S. businesses and the value of gross exports supported as performance measures. While ITA explains its reasons for discontinuing measures, some of the explanations were very brief. For example, ITA states that the value of gross exports is being discontinued as a measure to reflect departmental goals and objectives but does not describe those goals and objectives or explain the relationship of this measure to those goals and objectives. ITA has taken steps to improve its ability to demonstrate progress towards its goals by discontinuing three measures and adding two new measures. In addition, ITA presented a multi-step strategy for improving its performance. While this strategy is clear and reasonable, ITA’s prospects for success in improving its ability to demonstrate progress are unclear because, for each of its four performance goals for fiscal year 2002, it plans to rely on one, narrowly focused measure to demonstrate progress. For example, ITA will measure its progress in increasing U.S. exports by implementing the National Export Strategy by using the number of “new- to-market” firms. ITA states that this measure is circumstantial evidence of overall export growth and adds that it cannot measure actual dollar value of exports because of limitations on the data, such as the reluctance of businesses to reveal that information. In another instance, Commerce will use the number of anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases processed to measure its progress in improving American competitiveness and access to foreign markets by enforcing compliance with U.S. trade laws. However, in summarizing the limitations to this information, ITA states that the number of cases processed depends entirely on the number of injurious foreign trade actions taken and on the responses of parties other than ITA. In some cases, data exist that could support additional measures related to ITA’s performance goals. For example, as we reported in March 2000, ITA’s Trade Compliance Center relies on multiple sources of information and reporting mechanisms to ensure that trade agreements are monitored and compliance issues are promptly addressed. These sources of information include U.S. businesses, other parts of Commerce, and U.S. embassies overseas. The Trade Compliance Center also produces regular reports on possible compliance violations for use by other executive branch agencies. Thus, ITA already collects and maintains a rich set of useful data that is directly related to one of its key performance goals— improving competitiveness and access to foreign markets by enforcing compliance with U.S. trade laws and agreements. ITA identified both internal and external program evaluations that were related to its performance goals. Specifically, ITA reported that, in response to one of our reports, it clarified criteria for the types of agreements that are to be included in a trade database. Also, ITA reported that it conducted a number of internal reviews that identified needed changes in programs, administration, and management that were implemented at the end of these reviews. For each of its performance measures, ITA describes the data source, as well as its data validation and verification efforts. In addition, ITA generally discusses data limitations. For example, ITA explains that its success in collecting data on “new-to-export” firms is dependent on its clients’ willingness to provide such information. The Bureau of Export Administration’s (BXA) progress toward ensuring that the United States is secure from the proliferation of dual-use commodities and chemical weapons is unclear. As we observed last year, BXA’s ability to demonstrate progress toward this outcome has been hampered by the tendency of its measures to reflect workload and outputs—rather than outcomes—and a lack of clarity in the presentation of its performance goals. BXA reported that it met its targets for the number of strategic industry analyses completed, the number of investigations accepted for criminal or administrative remedies, the number of enforcement outreach visits, the number of end-use visits conducted, and the number of nonproliferation and export control international cooperative exchanges. However, BXA reported that it plans to discontinue using the last four of these measures for external reporting in the future. BXA said that it was changing its measures to align them more closely with new departmental objectives. However, BXA did not describe those objectives or explain why these measures do not support those objectives. In addition, BXA did not achieve its targets for average export licensing processing time, high-risk transactions deterred, licensing decisions made, number of investigations completed, and export assistance seminars and conferences attended. BXA plans to discontinue using all of these measures except the number of high-risk actions deterred. While BXA attributed its lack of success in meeting these targets to several factors—including the liberalization of export controls, the growing complexity of its investigations, and staff limits—its explanations were not always complete. For example, BXA said that the decline in the number of high-risk transactions deterred was due to unforeseen regulatory, policy, and technological changes, but did not describe those changes or explain their impact on the measure. In addition, BXA stated that it did not meet its target for number of licensing decisions due to unanticipated liberalizations of export controls. However, Commerce has advocated such changes and the report did not provide enough information to explain how these liberalizations differed from those advocated by Commerce. In another case, BXA said that it did not meet its targeted number of seminars and conferences due to budget constraints and its inability to fill critical personnel vacancies; however, it did not provide supporting details. BXA broadly described strategies for meeting the targets for its five performance goals associated with this key outcome. However, like ITA, BXA’s prospects for success in improving its ability to demonstrate progress are unclear because for fiscal year 2002, it plans to rely on one measure to demonstrate progress for each of these performance goals. For example, to ensure that the U.S. defense industrial base is healthy and competitive, BXA describes strategies such as coordinating federal support for U. S. defense firms involved in procurement competitions overseas, facilitating business contacts between U. S. industry and potential customers, maintaining the competitiveness of U.S. defense firms, and minimizing the burden of offsets placed on firms that make defense sales to foreign customers. To measure its performance related to this goal, BXA plans to use the dollar value of contracts won in international competitions by U.S. defense firms. While this measure may be an indicator of BXA’s success in this area, additional measures would provide further evidence of progress. Like the other component agencies, BXA identified program evaluations that were related to its performance goals. Specifically, BXA reported that, in response to reports from Commerce’s Office of Inspector General and us, BXA initiated its own program reviews related to data validation. BXA reported that it used the results of these program evaluations to identify improvements in data entry and review, among other things. For each of its performance measures, BXA describes the data source, as well as its data validation and verification efforts. However, unlike the other component agencies covered by this report, BXA generally did not discuss data limitations. Commerce’s FY 2000 Annual Program Performance Report and FY 2002 Performance Plan is a significant improvement over its fiscal year 1999 performance report and fiscal year 2001 performance plan and addresses the recommendations made in our June 2000 report. Most notably, Commerce clearly showed whether targets for performance goals were met or not met, rather than using the three-tiered scoring system that was used in last year’s report. Furthermore, for most of its component agencies and for departmental management, Commerce’s combined performance report and plan includes summaries of the mission, priorities and management challenges, actual and targeted levels of performance, and resource requirements. These summaries are followed by detailed explanations of the performance goals and measures that include explanations of whether performance targets were met or not met, as well as any changes, additions, or deletions from the prior year. In addition, an appendix in the combined document summarizes performance measures across component agencies, links them to Commerce’s strategic goals, and designates whether the targets were met or not met. In our June 2000 report, we recommended that the Secretary of Commerce ensure that the fiscal year 2000 performance report (1) classify performance measures as met or unmet to more clearly communicate the agency’s performance, (2) consistently explain why targets were not met when differences occur between actual and targeted performance, and (3) provide information about plans and schedules for meeting targets when they are not met. Commerce’s combined report and plan addresses these recommendations. For each performance measure, the document includes a table that lists the targeted and actual performance for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, clearly indicates whether the targets were met or not met, and lists targets for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. The table is followed by a narrative explanation of that measure. For the measures whose targets were exceeded or not met, the description usually explains whether Commerce has adjusted its performance targets for future years based on actual performance. For example, EDA reports that it has created or retained over 12,000 jobs in distressed areas, yet one of its fiscal year 2001 targets is to create or retain 7,201 jobs by fiscal year 2004. The narrative explains that this is the first year for which data have become available for this measure and the high number of jobs created or retained could have been due, in part, to strong economic growth; consequently, additional data are required before adjusting long-term projections. In another case, ITA reported that the number of “new-to-export” firms for fiscal year 2000 was 33,514, which was fewer than in fiscal year 1999; consequently, ITA reduced its fiscal year 2001 target for this measure from 36,949 firms to 30,336 firms to reflect trends experienced in fiscal year 2000. Each performance goal also includes a list of the measures that were discontinued, accompanied by explanations; an action plan, including planned strategies; a description of crosscutting activities both inside and outside of the department; and a discussion of external factors and accompanying mitigation strategies. In addition, the document includes two appendixes, one that lists all of the fiscal year 2000 measures and indicates whether they were met or not met and one that lists the performance measures and targets for fiscal years 2001 and 2002. In January 2001, we identified two governmentwide high-risk areas— strategic human capital management and information security—and reported on four major management challenges facing Commerce.Commerce’s combined report and plan contained goals and measures directly related to all of these challenges. Where measures were identified, Commerce reported its progress related to those measures. Commerce’s combined report and plan includes a performance goal of acquiring, managing, and developing a diverse, skilled, and flexible staff, using information technology as an essential tool. In describing its measures related to this goal, Commerce states that our high-risk report on strategic human capital management encourages agencies to consider strategic human capital management as a strategic asset. Commerce notes that it held a departmentwide meeting in August 2000 that involved senior managers who generated ideas for changing Commerce’s human capital strategy and incorporating human capital management into all major management systems. To assess how well it achieves this goal, Commerce plans to measure implementation of a process to identify current and projected mission- related workforce needs, the value of human resources services, the efficiency and effectiveness of hiring systems, recruiting activities, the alignment of performance management with mission accomplishment and overall recognition, and implementation of a telecommuting program. For fiscal year 2000, Commerce reports achievements that include developing a workforce analysis plan and identified workforce planning tools, pilot testing a Web-based recruitment and referral system, integrating performance management and awards, and pilot testing a telecommuting program. In addition, Commerce cited human capital initiatives as part of its strategy for addressing its challenge of strengthening financial management controls. Specifically, Commerce plans to establish financial leadership positions at all bureaus and develop a professional education program. For each of its component agencies, Commerce’s combined report and plan includes a table of resource requirements—including full-time equivalent positions, as well as a summary of the skills needed in that component agency. For example, BXA’s skill summary includes an extensive knowledge of the legislation and Executive Orders related to controlling dual-use commodities; knowledge of world political and economic systems, current trends in U. S. trade, and national security and foreign policy issues; and analytical abilities for complex licensing and policy decisions, as well as regulatory interpretations. Several component agencies discussed challenges related to human capital. The Bureau of the Census states that its strategies to achieve its mission include valuing its employees, and lists its workplace and workforce as a management challenge. By fostering diversity in its workforce, the Bureau hopes to create surveys that are more sensitive to the cultural base of the people being surveyed, as well as retain a trained and skilled workforce. One of ITA’s management challenges is to position human capital as a strategic asset. It projects that one-third of its employees can retire within 5 years and lists strategies for maintaining its workforce. Similarly, BXA notes that it lacks sufficient technical and analytical personnel and will lose people who retire. BXA also includes maintaining technical and analytical abilities as one of its management challenges, although it does not have goals and measures that are directly related to this challenge. NOAA and the Technology Administration discuss investing in people under their respective sections on priorities. While Commerce’s combined report and plan does not identify a specific performance goal for strengthening departmentwide information security, some of its goals contain measures related to information security. For example, under Department Management, Commerce’s performance goal to acquire and manage the fiscal and related resources necessary to support program goals contains a measure to protect information and staff at field sites from risk or disaster. For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the measure will be to ensure the protection of critical, classified, and sensitive Commerce computer systems and information from compromise or exploitation by adversaries, and will include inspecting, accrediting, and certifying computer systems. Another performance goal under Department Management is to acquire and manage the technology resources to support program goals. This goal includes a measure to increase the maturity of its information technology security program, which is a new measure for which the first target is established for fiscal year 2001. Information security and related issues such as critical infrastructure protection are also identified in the report as management challenges by the following component agencies: EDA, BXA, NOAA, the Bureau of the Census, the Minority Business Development Agency, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The report provides little specific information on the progress of resolving these challenges at these component agencies, and the related performance goals or measures identified were shown as new for fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year 2002 plan does not highlight the priority for establishing safeguards against unconventional national security threats that was included in the fiscal year 2001 plan. However, according to the plan, some of Commerce’s component agencies have performance goals and/or measures for critical infrastructure protection. These are as follows: The National Institute of Standards and Technology has a goal to protect the national information infrastructure. The primary focus of this goal is to establish a grants program for new research into advanced technologies, measurements, and methods that can raise the level of reliability and security of critical information technology-based systems and networks. The current measure for this goal is the timely and successful completion of activity milestones to establish the program. In the longer term, outcome measures will be developed that gauge the security, reliability, quality, and survivability of information technology systems and networks. BXA has a new performance goal to ensure that the nation’s infrastructure components are secured in accordance with an integrated plan. To begin in fiscal year 2002, the measure for this goal is the number of agency plans implemented within the framework of the National Critical Infrastructure Protection Plan. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration included a new performance goal to minimize the effects of crisis by preparing the U.S. telecommunications and information infrastructure protection programs. To begin in fiscal year 2002, the measure for this goal is to increase the number of state, city, and county governments actively engaged in critical infrastructure protection programs. However, in commenting on a draft of this report, Commerce officials said they will discontinue this measure because Commerce did not receive funding for efforts related to it. The four management challenges that we identified are the same as the four outcomes covered by this report. As discussed above, we found that Commerce’s performance report described the agency’s progress in achieving these challenges and contained goals and measures directly related to each of them. Commerce’s combined report and plan is a significant improvement over its fiscal year 1999 performance report and fiscal year 2001 performance plan and addresses the recommendations made in our June 2000 report. Furthermore, the report indicates that Commerce has made progress toward achieving two of the selected key outcomes. However, progress toward achieving the remaining two outcomes is unclear largely because of weaknesses related to measuring performance. Specifically, some of the measures are output-oriented, rather than outcome oriented; some measures have known limitations, which Commerce acknowledges; many of the measures used to assess performance in the past are being discontinued for the future; and Commerce plans to rely on one, narrowly focused measure to demonstrate progress for each performance goal related to these key outcomes. Furthermore, other data exist within ITA that could support additional measures related to its performance goals. We recommend that the Secretary of Commerce direct ITA and BXA to reassess the measures that are used to assess progress in achieving their organizational performance goals related to the outcomes covered by this report. Specifically, ITA and BXA should consider using more than one measure to address goals that are multifaceted or are difficult to measure. In addition, ITA should consider developing trade agreement compliance and enforcement measures based on data currently gathered by its trade compliance unit. Our evaluation was generally based on the requirements of GPRA, the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, guidance to agencies from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for developing performance plans and reports (OMB Circular A-11, Part 2), previous reports and evaluations by us and others, our knowledge of Commerce’s operations and programs, our identification of best practices concerning performance planning and reporting, and our observations on Commerce’s other GPRA-related efforts. We also discussed our review with Commerce’s Office of Inspector General. The agency outcomes that were used as the basis for our review were identified by the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee as important mission areas for the agency and do not reflect the outcomes for all of Commerce’s programs or activities. The major management challenges confronting Commerce, including the governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management and information security, were identified in January 2001 in our performance and accountability series and high-risk update or in December 2000 by Commerce’s Office of Inspector General. We did not independently verify the information contained in the performance report and plan, although we did draw from our other work in assessing the validity, reliability, and timeliness of Commerce’s performance data. We conducted our review from April through June 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We provided copies of a draft of this report to Commerce for its review and comment. We met with the Deputy Director, Office of Budget, and representatives from many of Commerce’s component agencies to obtain their comments. In general, they agreed with the information presented in the draft report and provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated where appropriate. While Commerce indicated that it would send its comments in writing, we did not receive written comments in time to include them in this report. 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 to appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Commerce; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available at www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-8678. Key contributors to this report were Debra Johnson, Stephen Lord, Tina Morgan, Colleen Phillips, William Ritt, Debra Rucker, Nancy Simmons, and Pierre Toureille. The major management challenges confronting Commerce, which include the governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management and information security, are shown in table 1. The first column lists the challenges that Commerce’s Office of Inspector General and/or we identified. The second column discusses the progress Commerce made in resolving its challenges as discussed in Commerce’s FY 2000 Annual Program Performance Report and FY 2002 Performance Plan. The third column discusses the extent to which Commerce’s combined document includes performance goals and measures to address the challenges. Commerce’s combined document discussed its progress in resolving all of the identified challenges. For its 15 challenges, Commerce’s performance plan contained goals or measures that were directly related to 11 of the challenges and goals or measures that were indirectly related to 3 of the challenges. The remaining challenge was not applicable because it dealt with improving Commerce’s GPRA efforts.

This report reviews the Department of Commerce's fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan required by the Government Performance and Results Act to assess Commerce's progress on achieving selected key outcomes. Commerce's combined performance report and performance plan is a significant improvement over its fiscal year 1999 performance report and fiscal year 2001 performance plan and addresses the recommendations made in GAO's June 2000 report. Furthermore, the report indicates that Commerce has made progress toward achieving two of the selected key outcomes. However, progress toward achieving the remaining two outcomes is unclear largely because of weaknesses related to measuring performance. Specifically, some of the measures are output-oriented, rather than outcome oriented; some measures have known limitations, which Commerce acknowledges; many of the measures used to assess performance in the past are being discontinued for the future; and Commerce plans to rely on one, narrowly focused measure to demonstrate progress for each performance goal related to these key outcomes. Furthermore, other data exist within the International Trade Administration (ITA) that could support additional measures related to these performance goals.

Questions arise over possible missed warnings about alleged abductor. Police say Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight likely endured years of abuse at the hands of three brothers during their captivity in this Cleveland house. (Photo: Bill Pugliano, Getty Images) Story Highlights Police delay "deep questioning" of women as they get acclimated to families, freedom Three brothers being held on suspicion of rape and kidnapping Evidence suggests the women were chained during captivity CLEVELAND -- Police Chief Michael McGrath said Wednesday that three young women held in captivity for almost a decade in a middle-class neighborhood were bound during their ordeal, apparently by chains and ropes found inside the frame house on Seymour Avenue. He also told NBC's Today that the victims had been "bound and there were chains and ropes in the hall." He said the women were "very rarely" allowed outside, usually for brief walks in the backyard. Cleveland police have delayed "deep questioning" of Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight, who were found in the house Monday, as they get acclimated to their families and freedom. While the three appear to be in good health, a disturbing tale of sexual assault, physical abuse, bondage and other horrors is already emerging. McGrath, who said more details would be released at a news briefing, told NBC that the suspects -- three middle-aged brothers -- have been interviewed. "They are talking," he told NBC's Savannah Guthrie. But he denied reports by some neighbors suggesting that local authorities may have missed not only warnings about the alleged captor, but also several chances to rescue the victims. Some neighbors claimed police were called several times over the years to the house on Seymour Avenue because of unusual behavior, such as a naked women being led on a leash in the yard. McGrath insisted to NBC that a thorough check of police records showed that officers were summoned only twice, and for incidents unrelated to the abduction of the three women. Police are releasing little information about Ariel Castro, a former school bus driver and erstwhile musician whose two-story, clapboard house appears to be the makeshift prison where the three women were kept. STORY: Dark picture of Castro family emerges MORE: Ohio women face tough emotional road Castro, 52, is being held on suspicion of rape and kidnapping, as are brothers Pedro Castro, 54, and Onil Castro, 50. One is believed to have fathered the 6-year-old girl found at the home with Berry, now 27, according to Deputy Police Chief Ed Tomba. McGrath said the charging process would be completed Wednesday. The stranger-than-fiction ordeal with a made-for Hollywood ending may require years of healing for the victims. Investigators have a shorter time frame. (Photo: AP) "We have several unanswered questions," Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson said. "How were they taken and how they remained undetected in the city of Cleveland for this period of time?" The Castro brothers allegedly forced all three women to have sex, resulting in up to five pregnancies, according to a report by Cleveland's WKYC-TV. The station, quoting unnamed law enforcement sources, reported that the Castros also beat the women while they were pregnant, with several fetuses not surviving. Police did not publicly confirm the report. (Ariel Castro was also arrested on a domestic violence charge in 1993 but was not prosecuted.) In addition, Khalid Samad, a former assistant safety director for the city, said law enforcement officials told him that the women were beaten while pregnant, with several miscarriages and that a dungeon of sorts with chains was in the home. Samad, who works with a crime prevention non-profit group, said he saw the women at the hospital Monday night. His description and other sourced information was not commented upon publicly by officials Tuesday night. Investigators from the FBI, Cleveland police and the Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Department are poring over Ariel Castro's West Cleveland home — located in a working class neighborhood less than a mile from where the victims were abducted. Officials dressed in white-paper body suits and blue gloves emerged periodically from the backyard Tuesday afternoon. Investigators have yet to excavate Castro's yard. "They are going through the place with a fine tooth comb," Cleveland Police Sgt. Sammy Morris said. Local police face some questions of their own. As the victims were being held captive, police visited Castro's home at least two times. In January 2004, police arrived as part of a child services investigation when Castro — then working as a school bus driver — stranded a boy. They left when no one answered the door. No criminal charges were filed. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images) Neighbors said Tuesday that they also notified police several times. Morris confirmed local police had contact with Ariel Castro on two occasions. But City Safety Director Martin Flask said that investigators had no record of any tips or calls about criminal activity at the house in the years after the victims vanished. Elsie Cintron, who lives three houses away from Castro, said her daughter saw a naked woman crawling on her hands and knees in Castro's backyard several years ago. Cintron said she called police, "but they didn't take it seriously," Cintron said. Another neighbor, Israel Lugo, said that in November 2011, his sister, Annita, heard pounding on an upper-floor window at Castro's house. When Annita Lugo looked up, she saw a woman and a baby at a window half-blocked by a wooden plank. Lugo called police. He said officers knocked on the front door, but no one answered. "They walked to the side of the house and then left," Lugo said. Lugo said that about a year later, his mother, Elsie Cintron, called police because Castro would park his school bus in front of their home and bring bags full of McDonald's fast food to his home. They wondered why he needed so much food, Lugo said. Police again responded but didn't enter the home. Last Sunday, Lugo said he saw Castro at a nearby park with the girl police believe is Berry's daughter. Castro told him the girl was his girlfriend's daughter. Lugo, who lives two doors down, has known Castro for 18 years and said they barbecued together on holidays and hung out frequently until about three years ago, when Castro began keeping to himself. Lugo said he was never in Castro's house. "He never let anyone inside his yard," Lugo said. "He took us all for fools." (Photo: Cleveland Department of Public Safety) Castro purchased the four-bedroom home from relatives for $12,000 in April 1992, according to Cuyahoga County Auditor's records. It's currently valued at $36,100, although county records indicate Castro owes $2,501 in back taxes. The house, adorned by U.S. and Puerto Rican flags, is now in foreclosure. Jay Owens, who lives behind Castro's home, said he never heard or saw anything suspicious. But Owens, who has three preteen daughters, says he's angered by the news he has heard. "It's unbelievable. Whatever he did, he did a good job," Owens said, shaking his head. The cover-up ended early Monday evening when a frantic Berry cracked open a door and yelled for help. Neighbor Charles Ramsey heard her through a door barely ajar. "I heard screaming,'' he said. "I'm eating my McDonald's. I come outside. I see this girl going nuts trying to get out of a house." After kicking out a screen in the door with Ramsey's assistance, Berry, dressed in pajamas and sandals, tearfully used a borrowed cellphone to call 911. "I've been kidnapped and I've been missing for 10 years and I'm freed now," said Berry. She disappeared on April 21, 2003 — a day before her 17th birthday — after telling her sister she was getting a ride home from her job at a Burger King. DeJesus, then 14, disappeared in 2004 on her way home from school. Knight, then 20, disappeared in August 2002. She was last seen at her cousin's home. (Photo: Emmanuel Dunand, AFP/Getty Images) Signs at Berry's house said, "We never lost hope" and "Wish it, Dream it, Do it." Berry's cousin, Michael Sneed, said the family kept hope by frequently mentioning her name and including her in dinner table conversations. They also held vigils and were vocal about wanting to find Berry. "We tried to keep it as alive as we could," Sneed said. After DeJesus vanished, her mother, Nancy Ruiz, did as Amanda Berry's mother, Louwana Miller, did a year earlier. She filed a missing person's report. Ruiz also organized searches and talked to the news media to keep her child's name and image in the public's view. Their story was also told on TV crime show America's Most Wanted. Miller had gifts waiting for the teen every Christmas, but she died in 2006 at 44. Tuesday's reunion photos show Amanda and her sister, Beth Serrano. While the three victims finally have a taste of freedom, adjusting to normal life is going to be difficult, therapists say. "It's going to be a long-term struggle," said psychologist Rona Fields, who has treated torture victims. Fields expects the trio will experience post-traumatic stress, self-esteem problems and difficulty making decisions. They also may have trouble reconnecting with family members they haven't seen in years. "I would like to be able to say, 'Oh, they are going to be fine. Give them some warmth and love and chicken soup,'" she said. "But in reality, that isn't the case." Fields and Peter Suedfeld, a psychologist who specializes in adaptation to stressful environments, saidy the women will need intensive therapy. "It's highly likely they'll have post-traumatic stress syndrome," Suedfeld says. "My advice would be to let them get used to things gradually." Strauss reported from McLean, Va. Contributing: Cathy Lynn Grossman, Kevin Johnson and Donna Leinwand Leger in Washington, D.C., and Laura Petrecca and Kevin McCoy in New York. Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/142uemM ||||| CLOSE Gina DeJesus gave the crowds surrounding her house a thumbs up when she returned home after more than a decade in captivity. VPC Cleveland homeowner Ariel Castro charged with kidnapping and rape, but two brothers not charged. A sign hangs on the porch of the home of Amanda Berry's sister on Wednesday. (Photo: Tony Dejak, AP) Story Highlights Cleveland homeowner Ariel Castro charged with kidnapping and rape Two brothers were not charged Survivors Amanda Berry and Gina DeJesus reunited with their families Third victim, Michelle Knight, remains hospitalized Ariel Castro, the man who owned the Cleveland home where three women escaped this week after nearly a decade of captivity, was charged with four counts of kidnapping and three counts of rape. The kidnapping charges include the 6-year-old daughter of Amanda Berry, who was conceived and born in the house on the city's west side. DNA tests are being conducted to determine the child's father. Castro will be arraigned Thursday morning. His two brothers, Pedro and Onil, will not be charged. Cleveland prosecutor Victor Perez said there was no evidence they were involved in the crime or had any knowledge of it. No other victims are expected from the case. Other revelations: • Berry and Gina DeJesus were welcomed back to their family homes. The third victim, Michelle Knight, remained hospitalized Wednesday. • Berry was reunited with relatives at her sister's home in Cleveland. Her sister, Beth Serrano, made a brief statement thanking the public for their support and requesting privacy so that Berry can "heal" and "recover." • DeJesus hid her face with a hoodie and gave a thumbs-up sign as she arrived home. • DeJesus reportedly told investigators she was abducted when she accepted a ride home from school, according to NBC News. • DeJesus is in "good sprits," according to a CNN interview with a family member. • DeJesus was a friend of Ariel Castro's daughter as a young teen, WKYC-TV reports. • Ariel Castro helped search for DeJesus when she went missing, and Castro was friends with the girl's father, Khalid Samad, a friend of the DeJesus family, told the Associated Press. Samad also said Castro helped pass out missing-persons fliers. • AP reported that Castro also comforted DeJesus' mother at a candlelight vigil for her missing daughter. • Victims' family members told CNN that survivor Michelle Knight, the longest held captive, was "malnourished and weak." • Metro Health Hospital spokeswoman Tina Shaerban-Arundel confirmed Knight was still hospitalized Wedneday, in good condition. • Cleveland Safety Director Martin Flask said no human remains had been found at the site where Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus and Michelle Knight escaped. Authorities had been drawn to disturbed soil in the yard — and previously told WKYC-TV that the three women were forced to have sex with their captors, that the pregnant women were beaten and that the babies didn't survive. • One victim reportedly suffered up to three miscarriages because she was so malnourished, according to Cleveland's WEWS-TV. • One of the brothers is believed to have fathered the 6-year-old girl found at the home with Berry, now 27, according to Deputy Police Chief Ed Tomba. DNA tests are being conducted to verify paternity. • Berry give birth in an inflatable swimming pool inside the house, police told The Plain Dealer. The girl's name is Jocelyn. STORY: Disturbing tale of Cleveland captivity • WKYC-TV reports Berry's family is "excited" to meet their grandchild and is eager to "embrace Berry's daughter as their own." • Police sources said the 6-year-old-girl was occasionally taken out of the house and would visit suspect Ariel Castro's mother, Lillian Rodriguez, whom she called "grandmother." • The women were restrained by ropes and chains and occasionally had been allowed into the backyard, Police Chief Michael McGrath said. • WKYC-TV spoke with Ariel Castro's son, who said his father was "secretive" and that there were padlocks on doors to the attic, basement and garage in his father's home. Castro's son said he was not close to his father. • Investigators are talking with relatives of at least one other missing woman from the neighborhood, AP reported. Ashley Summers, a 14-year-old girl, disappeared in 2007 near the house where Castro lives. • McGrath told NBC's Today show that the physical condition of the three women was "very good considering the circumstances" and the women were allowed in the backyard of the suspect's home "once in a while." • McGrath said police did everything they could to find the women since they went missing, denying claims by neighbors that officers had been called to the house for suspicious circumstances from time to time in the past 10 years. • Cleveland neighbor Israel Lugo said that other neighbors had seen women crawling on all fours behind Castro's house, and that the men were controlling the women, according to the U.K.'s Daily Mail Online. • Suspect Ariel Castro speaks both English and Spanish. Brothers Pedro and Onil Castro speak only Spanish, according to WKYC-TV. • FBI Special Agent Vicki Anderson told ABC-TV that the three woman "had a bond, that they had been through this together." Contributing: Michael Winter Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/143DjLZ ||||| Police believe one of the men accused of kidnapping three Cleveland women and keeping them prisoners for a decade, is likely the father of a 6-year-old girl, whose mother was abducted off a Cleveland street when she was just a teenager. A young girl, identified as the daughter of Amanda Berry, was rescued from a modest Cleveland home on Monday along with her mother and two other woman, Gina DeJesus, 27, and Michelle Knight, 32, after Berry broke free and called 911. The little girl, named Jocelyn, ate popsicles in the hospital room in which she and her mother were examined after all four females were takes to Metro Medical Center, said Cleveland Police Deputy Chief Ed Tomba. "She looks great, happy, healthy and ate a popsicle last night," Tomba said of the little girl, who may have been born and raised in the very house in which her mother was a captive. "Seeing her mother smile made her smile," Tomba said. FBI Special Agent Vicki Anderson told ABC News that Jocelyn is missing a front tooth and that Berry had been schooling her daughter in the home. Police said the women knew each other in the home, and while in the hospital asked to visit one another. It was DeJesus who proudly showed off to investigators a drawing the little girl had made. Police will soon work to determine the girl's paternity using DNA tests, Tomba said, but given the circumstances of Berry's imprisonment it was likely that Jocelyn's father was one of three brothers arrested in connection to the women's captivity. "It's a good possibility one of them is," Tomba said. Those men are Ariel Castro, 52, who owned the home on Seymour Avenue in which the women were found and his two brothers Onil Castro, 50, and Pedro Castro, 54. Tomba said investigators were working to determine if the girl had ever left the house, but said she likely would have gone unnoticed by police who were not looking for a child. All three women were abducted between 2002 and 2004, Berry and DeJesus were in their teens at the time of their kidnappings and Knight was 20 years old. On Monday evening, Berry began screaming from behind the locked front door of the home where she and the other women were being held. Neighbors heard her and held kick open the door and then called police, ending what one FBI agent called the women's "nightmare. " ||||| CLOSE Kidnapping and rape charges were filed Wednesday against a man arrested after three women missing for about a decade were found alive at his home. Ariel Castro was charged while his brothers were held but faced no immediate charges. (May 8) AP School bus driver charged with rape, kidnapping of three young women who were held captive for years at his west Cleveland home Police patrol cars stand watch in front of the house where three women were held captive for a decade on Wednesday in Cleveland. (Photo: Emmanuel Dunand, AFP/Getty Images) Story Highlights Chilling police report details the horror of victims' long captivity No evidence that Castro's brothers were aware of victims Castro is scheduled for arraignment Thursday morning CLEVELAND — A man accused of imprisoning three women in a house here for more than a decade was charged Wednesday with multiple counts of kidnapping and rape in an unfolding case that has horrified the nation. Ariel Castro, 52, faces three counts of rape and four counts of kidnapping involving victims Amanda Berry, Gina DeJesus, and Michelle Knight. The three vanished between 2002 and 2004. Castro was also charged with kidnapping in connection with Berry's 6-year-old daughter, who was also found at the home Monday and who police believe was fathered by Castro. A police report obtained by Cleveland TV station WKYC paints a chilling portrait of the women's ordeal, including beatings, chained confinement, starvation and death threats. The report alleges that Castro impregnated Knight five times, forced her to starve for weeks at a time and punched her in the stomach until she miscarried. Castro, the report said, also forced Knight to deliver Berry's baby in a plastic kiddie pool and threatened to murder Knight if the newborn died. Castro is scheduled to be arraigned at 8:30 a.m. Thursday. Additional charges against the former school bus driver could be filed at a later date. Ariel Castro is among three brothers in police custody in Cleveland. (Photo: AP) The felony charges against Castro came 48 hours after Berry — now 27 — made a frantic flight from Castro's Seymour Avenue home early Monday evening. Authorities say that may have been the first opportunity any of the victims had to escape. According to the police report, Berry told police that Castro forgot to lock the "big inside door" of the home when he left Monday to a nearby McDonald's. The report said Castro lured the victims into his car on separate occasions and kept their presence in his west Cleveland home a secret for more than a decade. All three were chained up in the basement, but Castro eventually freed them to live on the second floor. The women had been outside Castro's home just twice since their kidnapping, but kept just steps away at a detached garage on the property. Even for those brief moments outside, Castro allegedly forced the women to disguise themselves in hats, wigs and sunglasses, Cleveland Deputy Police Chief Ed Tomba said. Castro's brothers, Pedro and Onil, were also arrested Monday. But Victor Perez, chief deputy prosecutor for Cleveland, said there is no evidence that either brother — who did not live at Ariel Castro's home — were involved in any crimes against the women or Berry's daughter. "Ariel kept everyone at a distance," Tomba said. "You didn't go into his house. You called before you came over. He ran the show. He was the big bully." Pedro and Onil have court hearings Thursday on outstanding misdemeanor warrants, Perez, the prosecutor, said. According to the police report, Knight told police she was in the area of West 106th Street and Lorain Avenue when Castro offered her a ride home in August 2002. But he took her to his house where he chained her up in the basement, the report said. Berry was walking home in April 2003 from Burger King when Castro offered her a ride home, the report said. Castro told Berry that his son also worked at Burger King. DeJesus told police that Castro initially approached her with Castro's daughter — a schoolmate, the report said. Castro later returned without his daughter and told DeJesus that he would give her a ride to his house so they could hang out, the report said. Knight, now 32, remains in a Cleveland hospital. But Berry, 27, and DeJesus, 23, returned to their Cleveland homes earlier Wednesday, where they were surrounded by family and friends. People decorate the family home of Gina DeJesus on May 7 in Cleveland. (Photo: Emmanuel Dunand, AFP/Getty Images) DeJesus, wearing a fluorescent yellow-green hoodie, stepped from a car, and gave a thumbs up as the crowd chanted "Gina! Gina!" A woman then pulled her into a tight embrace and hustled her inside through a forest of flowers and balloons. Nancy Ruiz, DeJesus' mother, thanked those who had helped the family over the past nine years. "Even the ones that doubted, I want to thank them the most," she said. "They're the ones that made me stronger, the ones that made me feel the most that my daughter was out there." Gina's aunt, Sandra Ruiz, called on friends, relatives and the media "to give us time and privacy to heal." Ruiz also called on the community to help search for Ashley Summers, another young woman from the area who went missing at the age of 14 in 2007. A missing poster still rests on a tree outside the home of Amanda Berry on Wednesday in Cleveland. Berry, 27, Michelle Knight, 32, and Gina DeJesus were freed Monday after being held captive for nearly a decade in a house only a few miles away. (Photo: Tony Dejak AP) Berry arrived at her sister's home accompanied by her daughter. They were also greeted by a porch covered by balloons, flowers, teddy bears and a huge sign that read: "Welcome home, Amanda." It was her first sight of the modest, two-story home since she disappeared on April 21, 2003 — a day before her 17th birthday. Berry's mother, Louwana Miller, never gave up hope that her daughter would surface. But she died in 2006. LATEST: What we know A tearful Beth Serrano, Berry's sister, spoke briefly to reporters in front of the house to thank the public and the news media for their support and to request privacy for the family "until we are ready to make our statements." Berry, DeJesus and Knight were freed after Berry's screams for help alerted a neighbor, who helped free her. After she called 911 from a borrowed cellphone, police arrived at Castro's home, where they checked the basement and then walked to the second floor. Berry, who arrived home in a convoy escorted by police, had been with her family at an undisclosed location since Monday's rescue. Police have said they were delaying any intense debriefing of the victims until they adjust to their unexpected freedom. Amanda Berry, right, reunited with her sister, left, on May 6 in Cleveland, Ohio. (Photo: AFP/Getty Images) Separately, information has surfaced on Ariel Castro's relationship with Grimilda Figueroa, mother of four of his children. In 2005, Figueroa got a temporary protective order against Castro after she complained that he broken her nose, ribs, dislocated her shoulder and knocked out her tooth. Castro threatened multiple times to kill her and a daughter, Figueroa's attorney wrote on the petition. Since 1997, Figueroa had sole custody of the children fathered by Castro. They lived with her full time in a house on Liberty Avenue in Cleveland. But, the attorney wrote, Castro "frequently abducts daughters and keeps them from mother." The protective order that barred Castro from coming near her or the children noted that Castro has access to firearms and deputies attempting to enforce the order should "proceed with caution." Castro challenged the order and when Figueroa's attorney was unable to appear at a November hearing, the judge dissolved the protective order on Nov. 21, 2005. Contributing: Doug Stanglin, USA TODAY; Associated Press Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/143Edbu

The little girl born to Amanda Berry in captivity is "happy, healthy," Cleveland's police deputy chief tells ABC News. The 6-year-old's name is Jocelyn, and an FBI agent says Berry had been home-schooling her while being held in Ariel Castro's home. Gina DeJesus, who was also held captive in the home, showed investigators a drawing Jocelyn did; police say Berry, DeJesus, and Michelle Knight got to know each other during their ordeal and asked to visit each other in the hospital. Berry and Jocelyn returned home today, to Berry's sister's house in Cleveland, USA Today reports. Police believe Castro or one of his two arrested brothers is Jocelyn's father, and say they will do a DNA test to figure out which one. Last night, Anderson Cooper interviewed neighbor Charles Ramsey, who helped Berry and Jocelyn escape. "That little girl came out the house and she was crying," Ramsey said. "And she's like I want my daddy. And I said, who's her daddy? She said Ariel." Indeed, Castro took Jocelyn to see his mother, and the little girl called Lillian Rodriguez her grandmother, USA Today reports. The paper also reports that a neighbor saw Castro at a park with a girl believed to be Jocelyn just last Sunday, and Castro said she was his girlfriend's daughter. (Meanwhile, Castro's daughter Angie now says there were signs something was wrong; click for her revelations.)

The United States Senate just passed the biggest in history Tax Cut and Reform Bill. Terrible Individual Mandate (ObamaCare)Repealed. Goes to the House tomorrow morning for final vote. If approved, there will be a News Conference at The White House at approximately 1:00 P.M. ||||| Republicans in the House passed the GOP tax bill on Dec. 19, while Democrats continue to voice their protest. The bill is expected to pass in the Senate in the evening. (Jenny Starrs,Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post) Republicans in the House passed the GOP tax bill on Dec. 19, while Democrats continue to voice their protest. The bill is expected to pass in the Senate in the evening. (Jenny Starrs,Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post) Follow Wednesday’s updates here: GOP tax bill passes Congress Republicans are on the verge of passing the most significant overhaul of the tax code since 1986, after the Senate passed the GOP plan early Wednesday morning and House leaders scheduled a vote to quickly send it to President Trump. The sprawling plan would cut the corporate tax rate dramatically and provide new breaks for other businesses. It also would lower income tax bills in 2018 for the vast majority of households, though the wealthy would see far more relief than the middle class and working poor. The plan would revise nearly every part of the tax system by lowering income tax rates at all levels and restructuring deductions. And it extends beyond taxes and into health care by scrapping a central part of the Affordable Care Act. The bill passed the Senate 51 to 48 just before 1 a.m., with no Democrats backing the bill while all Republicans present voted for it. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) did not attend the vote as he undergoes treatment for brain cancer. He said earlier this month that he supported the bill. House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) listens during a news conference after a GOP conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol on Dec. 19, 2017. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg News) The plan’s passage had not been in doubt since Friday, when holdout Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.) pledged to support it. “Congress is standing at the doorstep of a historic opportunity,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday ahead of the vote. “Here’s what we set out to do: Take money out of Washington’s pockets and put it back in the pockets of ­middle-class Americans.” House Republicans thought they had finished their tax work on Tuesday afternoon when they passed a version of the bill 227 to 203. But the effort hit a snag Tuesday afternoon when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that three of its provisions violated that chamber’s Byrd Rule — guidelines on what types of legislation can pass with a simple 50-vote majority. To comply with the Byrd Rule, the Senate made minor tweaks to the bill before passing it, requiring the House to vote again as the two chambers must pass identical versions. The House is slated to vote Wednesday midday, and none of the changes are expected to cost the plan GOP support. [Last-minute real estate perk in tax plan prompts blowback for Corker] Despite the delay, Republicans celebrated Tuesday in anticipation of their plan passing, their first major legislative victory of the Trump presidency. Trump has for months pushed Republican lawmakers to send him a tax plan by Christmas and is expected to sign the measure at a ceremony shortly after it clears Congress. Reps. Peter J. Roskam (R-Ill.), Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.) and Tom Reed (R-N.Y.) on Dec. 19 praised Republicans’ plan to overhaul the tax code before the House passed the bill. (Jordan Frasier/The Washington Post) “This is one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress has passed in decades. . . . For all those millions of Americans struggling paycheck to paycheck, help is on the way,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) said after the House vote. “This is a good day for workers . . . and a great day for growth.” The core of the plan is a massive and permanent cut to the corporate tax rate, dropping it from 35 percent to 21 percent. The bill also would cut individual tax rates for all income tax levels. Families earning less than $25,000 a year would receive an average tax cut of $60, while those earning more than $733,000 would see an average cut of $51,000, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Many of the breaks for individuals are set to expire in the coming years. Republicans set those expiration dates to comply with Senate limits on how much their legislation could add to the nation’s deficit, and they say a future Congress will extend the cuts or make them permanent. But without intervention, the measure would raise taxes on 53 percent of Americans by 2027, according to the TPC’s report. The bill also restructures a complicated system of deductions many households and businesses use to lower their tax bills. The standard deduction, taken by many middle- and low-income households, would double, and a child tax credit would be expanded. But other money-saving provisions, including a deduction on interest paid on new-home mortgages and a provision allowing Americans to deduct what they pay in state and local taxes, would be curtailed. [Read the full GOP tax bill] Of the 12 Republicans in the House who voted against the bill, 11 represent districts in New York, New Jersey or California. Those states are expected to be hit hard by the bill’s reduction of the state and local tax deduction, which helps those in high-tax states. “Many in my area could face higher taxes under this plan,” Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif), one of the no votes, said in a statement before the vote. “Californians have entrusted me to fight for them. I will not make the incredible tax burden they already endure even worse.” The bill also would reduce the estate tax, a levy on inheritances paid only by the wealthiest estates. Under the bill, a couple could pass on up to $22 million in assets without their legatees having to pay the tax. The bill also would void an Affordable Care Act requirement that nearly all Americans obtain some form of health coverage or pay a penalty. The change is projected to reduce government spending by $300 billion over a decade but also eventually leave 13 million more people with no health insurance. Republicans have touted their bill as a middle-class tax cut and have promised that it will produce enough economic growth to boost hiring and workers’ wages, and create enough revenue to keep it from enlarging the deficit. In an analysis of an earlier version of the bill, the Joint Committee on Taxation , Congress’s official tax scorekeeper, projected that the bill would add $1 trillion to the deficit over a decade, even when projected economic growth is taken into account. That figure would grow substantially if the individual tax cuts were extended, and Republicans predict that they will be. [Trump, at last, looks to notch a legislative win with tax bill. But can he redirect his presidency?] The JCT projected that the earlier version of the plan would boost economic growth by 0.8 percent over a decade, far lower than the 3 percent growth Republicans on Tuesday promised their plan would unlock. “We have not had a 3 percent economy since before the last recession,” Ryan said before the vote. “Tax reform will get us a 3 percent economy.” Democrats unanimously oppose the plan but lack the votes to block it in either chamber. The sidelined minority’s members have spent months bashing the plan as a giveaway to corporations and the wealthy. “Today is a terrible day for millions of hard-working people, but it is a great day for giant multinational corporations and billionaires who fund Republican campaigns across this country,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on the Senate floor Tuesday ahead of the vote. “It’s not tax reform. It’s a heist.” During the House vote, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and a handful of his staff members watched the proceedings from the public gallery. The Republican caucus rose in near unanimous applause after the final vote was counted, then went to congratulate Ryan and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Tex.) with smiles and pats on the back. There were signs of opposition, as well. A handful of activists sitting in the public gallery repeatedly interrupted Republicans as they introduced the tax measure in the House, and a separate group interrupted the Senate vote with chants of “kill the bill.” Several of the House protesters were escorted out by Capitol Police officers. “You are lying to yourselves!” one activist yelled as she told House Republicans they needed to go back to school to learn math. The barb elicited laughter among the Democrats on the House floor. A woman in a wheelchair chanted, “Shame! Shame!” as she was removed from the gallery. Polling suggests that the public is broadly skeptical of the plan. A CNN poll released Tuesday found that only 33 percent of Americans support it, with 66 percent of the country thinking it does more for the wealthy than for the middle class. But Ryan said he had “no concerns whatsoever” about the bill’s polling, arguing that public support would swing in favor of the package once taxpayers see their after-tax incomes rise. “Results are going to make this popular,” Ryan said. Read more: Will your taxes go up or down in 2018 under the new tax bill? The Finance 202: The GOP tax plan’s lopsided numbers Republicans say it’s a tax cut for the middle class. The biggest winners are the rich. ||||| Donald Trump has said his first major legislative victory would be a ‘big, beautiful Christmas present’ for Americans Senate Republicans have passed a sweeping overhaul of the US tax code, placing Donald Trump on the brink of scoring his first major legislative victory. The Senate approved the $1.5 trillion tax bill, which includes permanent tax breaks for corporations and temporary tax cuts for individuals, by a final vote of 51-48. Once enacted, the legislation will represent the most drastic changes to the US tax code since 1986. The bill was passed along party lines, with every Senate Republican present voting in its favor and all Democrats voting against it. Arizona senator John McCain, who is undergoing treatment for brain cancer, was the lone member to be absent for the vote. Quick guide How the tax bill changes business rules... and three people who will benefit Show Hide More than 90% of companies in the US are pass-through businesses, meaning their income passes through to the owners' individual tax returns, where it​ is taxed at ordinary income tax rates, instead of​ ​being filed on a separate business return like a corporation.​ ​The bill cuts the top rate on “qualified” pass​-​through business income from 39.6% under current law to 29.6%​. Below are the savings key administration figures will see, according to the Center for American Progress: Donald Trump US president $11m-$15m Jared Kushner Senior White House adviser $5m-$12m Betsy DeVos Secretary of education $2.7m Although the bill’s passage was expected, tensions boiled to a surface as the final vote was held, as Democrats sharply criticized Republicans for a bill independent analysts have projected will disproportionately benefit the wealthy and corporations. The legislation must go back to the Republican-controlled House of Representatives on Wednesday for final approval, but is expected to pass. The bill lowers the top individual tax rate from 39.6% to 37% and slashes the corporate tax rate to 21%, a dramatic fall from its current rate of 35%. In remarks on the Senate floor, Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, said Republicans would “rue the day” when they passed the bill, which he blasted as a “disgrace”. A visibly frustrated Schumer then chastised Republicans for talking during his speech. “This is serious stuff. We believe you’re messing up America,” Schumer, a Democrat from New York, told Republicans. “You could pay attention for a couple of minutes.” Facebook Twitter Pinterest ‘Kill the bill’: activists interrupt tax reform vote in US senate – video As the vote occurred, activists in the press gallery shouted “Kill the bill, don’t kill us”. The chaotic proceedings were eventually called to order by vice president Mike Pence, who was presiding over the chamber for what will soon mark a rare but significant achievement for the Trump administration. After the bill passed, Republicans celebrated the moment in a late-night press conference where Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell hit back against criticism that the tax overhaul was unpopular among the public. “If we can’t sell this to the American people, we ought to go into another line of work,” McConnell said. The Senate vote came hours after House Republicans passed the tax bill by a vote of 227 to 203, with 12 Republicans voting against the plan and no Democrats supporting it. The House will nonetheless be forced to vote on the legislation once more on Wednesday, after it was discovered that the bill they passed fell short of the necessary rules for Senate Republicans to pass it with a simple majority. The Senate subsequently stripped out the minor provisions that were in violation of the rules, clearing the way for House Republicans to hold a second vote on Wednesday and then send the bill to Trump’s desk for his signature. Democrats say the failure to write a bill that would comply with Senate rules – an avoidable misstep – underscored the slapdash manner and lightning fast speed at which Republicans assembled their tax overhaul. The urgency among Republicans to pass a tax bill before the year’s end was similarly underscored when they provided lawmakers with a copy of the 500-page tax plan hours before an initial vote was scheduled on the legislation. In an online video, Senator Jon Tester, Democrat of Montana, called it “Washington DC at its worst” as he flipped through the pages, showing off the handwritten changes in the margins. After the House vote, Trump praised House Republican leadership for delivering the $1.5tn tax cut plan. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) Congratulations to Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy, Kevin Brady, Steve Scalise, Cathy McMorris Rodgers and all great House Republicans who voted in favor of cutting your taxes! Despite the delay, Congress is still expected to send the bill to Trump in time to deliver what he has promised would be a “big, beautiful Christmas present” for the nation. Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, went so far as it call it “the worst bill in history” in a press conference on Tuesday. She described it as “an all-out looting of America, a wholesale robbery of the middle class” and said: “The GOP tax scam will go down, again, as one of the worst, most scandalous acts of plutocracy in our history.” The tax plan enacts a deep and permanent cut for corporations, slashing the top rate from 35% to 21%. The bill also includes tax cuts for individuals and families of all income levels, with the largest breaks going to the wealthiest Americans. The individual tax cuts are slated to expire in 2025, a move to comply with Senate budget rules, but Republicans said a future Congress would extend them. “This is one of the most important pieces of legislation that Congress has passed in decades to help the American worker to help grow the American economy,” Paul Ryan, the House Speaker, said moments after the bill passed. “This is profound change and this is change that is going to put our country on the right path.” Congressman Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana, added: “Today the impossible became the inevitable again.” Democrats were excluded from the closed-door sessions where the plan was crafted. They have condemned the measure as a handout to the wealthy and corporations, and promised to use it as a cudgel against Republicans in the 2018 midterms. The GOP tax scam will go down, again, as one of the worst, most scandalous acts of plutocracy in our history Nancy Pelosi Republicans have long pushed tax reform as a way to simplify the US tax code, but the proposal would keep all seven existing tax brackets for individuals. The bill has faced significant criticism because it would limit tax deductions for home mortgages and state and local taxes, as well as adding over a trillion dollars to the budget deficit. The bill would not only reshape tax policy in the United States. It also contains provisions to allow oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic national wildlife refuge, and would eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, which requires Americans to either buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Despite being heralded by Republicans and the White House as a major accomplishment, the bill is deeply unpopular. A CNN poll released earlier on Tuesday found that 55% of voters had a unfavorable view of the plan and only 33% view it favorably. Ryan dismissed criticism of the bill, saying “results are what’s going to make this popular”. Republicans, who control both chambers of Congress but have so far failed to achieve a major legislative victory, relished the moment hours before the vote was scheduled on Tuesday. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Nancy Pelosi was scathing about the bill. Photograph: Aaron Bernstein/Reuters After final passage, Ryan loudly gaveled the vote to a close while receiving a standing ovation from House Republicans. Ryan has long pushed for cutting taxes and reforming the tax code and the vote on Tuesday was seen as a defining achievement for him. Congress, meanwhile, is running up against a Friday deadline to fund the federal government. A sticking point over funding Obamacare payments – a promise made to secure Maine senator Susan Collins’ vote on tax reform – risks a potential revolt by House conservatives and a possible government shutdown. The White House hailed the House passage of the tax bill and indicated Trump would sign it in the coming days. “The president will have delivered the most significant tax cut in the history of the nation,” Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, said. Sanders struggled, however, to defend Trump’s assertion in a speech last month that the tax bill would cost him “a fortune”. “We expect that it likely will, certainly on the personal side, could cost the president a lot of money,” she said, while adding: “The president’s focus hasn’t necessarily been at all on himself.” “This is a tax plan that we hope benefits all Americans primarily,” Sanders said. Trump tax plan: what's in the final bill? Read more Independent analyses have shown Trump and his cabinet stand to gain millions through a provision within the bill that doubles the exemption of the so-called estate tax. The president is also poised to save up to $30m from the repeal of what is known as the alternative minimum tax, a supplemental income tax intended to prevent wealthy Americans using loopholes to avoid paying taxes. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation and the Congressional Budget Office, both independent research groups in Congress, have said the tax bill will disproportionately benefit the wealthy and corporations. As a result, Trump is likely to receive a larger average tax cut than the middle class. When reporters pointed out the White House could directly address how the bill affects Trump by releasing his tax returns, Sanders insisted they are under audit and therefore cannot be disclosed. Trump used a similar line to justify his failure to release his tax returns as a candidate, breaking with a 40-year precedent for US presidential nominees.

President Trump is now one step closer to getting the tax reform bill he wanted for Christmas. The Senate passed the biggest tax overhaul in more than 30 years in a 51-48 vote just after 1am Wednesday, the Washington Post reports. Every Republican present voted in favor, though Sen. John McCain was in Arizona receiving medical treatment. No Democrats voted for the bill, which slashes the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. The House approved the bill 227-203 on Tuesday, but because of a legislative issue, they will have to vote again on Wednesday before it can land on Trump's desk. The Senate "just passed the biggest in history Tax Cut and Reform Bill," Trump tweeted. "Terrible Individual Mandate (ObamaCare) Repealed." The president, who has described the bill as a "big, beautiful Christmas present" to the nation, said that if it passes the second House vote, there will be a White House press conference at 1pm Wednesday. The Guardian reports that in remarks on the Senate floor, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called the bill a "disgrace" and said Republicans would "rue the day" they passed it. The Democrat lashed out at Republicans for talking during his speech. "This is serious stuff. We believe you're messing up America," he said. "You could pay attention for a couple of minutes." (A dozen House Republicans voted against the bill.)

Waiver of Section 1083 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 Determination of President of the United States, No. 2008–9, , 73 F.R. 6571, provided: Memorandum for the Secretary of State By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and section 1083(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (the “Act”), I hereby determine that: • All provisions of section 1083 of the Act, if applied to Iraq or any agency or instrumentality thereof, may affect Iraq or its agencies or instrumentalities, by exposing Iraq or its agencies or instrumentalities to liability in United States courts and by entangling their assets in litigation. • The economic security and successful reconstruction of Iraq continue to be top national security priorities of the United States. Section 1083 of the Act threatens those key priorities. If permitted to apply to Iraq, section 1083 would risk the entanglement of substantial Iraqi assets in litigation in the United States—including those of the Development Fund for Iraq, the Central Bank of Iraq, and commercial entities in the United States in which Iraq has an interest. Section 1083 also would expose Iraq to new liability of at least several billion dollars by undoing judgments favorable to Iraq, by foreclosing available defenses on which Iraq is relying in pending litigation, and by creating a new Federal cause of action backed by the prospect of punitive damages to support claims that may previously have been foreclosed. If permitted to apply to Iraq, section 1083 would have a significant financial impact on Iraq and would result in the redirection of financial resources from the continued reconstruction of Iraq and the harming of Iraq’s stability, contrary to the interests of the United States. • A waiver of all provisions of section 1083 with respect to Iraq and any agency or instrumentality of Iraq is therefore in the national security interest of the United States and will promote the reconstruction of, the consolidation of democracy in, and the relations of the United States with, Iraq. • Iraq continues to be a reliable ally of the United States and a partner in combating acts of international terrorism. The , Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America confirmed the commitment of the United States and Iraq to build an enduring relationship in the political, diplomatic, economic, and security arenas and to work together to combat all terrorist groups, including al-Qaida. Accordingly, I hereby waive all provisions of section 1083 of the Act with respect to Iraq and any agency or instrumentality thereof. You are authorized and directed to notify the Congress of this determination and waiver and the accompanying memorandum of justification [not set out in the Code], incorporated by reference herein, and to arrange for their publication in the Federal Register. George W. Bush. ||||| Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post correspondent who was unjustly imprisoned by Iran for 18 months, and his family have filed a lawsuit against the Iranian government. (The Washington Post) Jason Rezaian, the Washington Post correspondent who was unjustly imprisoned by Iran for 18 months, and his family have filed a lawsuit against the Iranian government. (The Washington Post) Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian and his family filed a federal lawsuit Monday against the Iranian government, claiming he was taken hostage and psychologically tortured during his 18 months in prison in an effort by Tehran to influence negotiations for a nuclear agreement with Iran. The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, says Rezaian was targeted for arrest to gain advantage in a prisoner exchange and to “extort” concessions from the U.S. government in the multinational talks over lifting sanctions if Iran agreed to limits on its nuclear program. [Read the full lawsuit filed by the Rezaian family] Iranian officials repeatedly told Rezaian and his wife, Yeganeh Salehi, who also was detained for more than two months, that Rezaian had “value” as a bargaining chip for a prisoner swap, the suit says. The filing also links key moments in the nuclear negotiations to Rezaian’s treatment in the judicial system, from arrest to conviction to sentencing, and ultimately his release on the day the deal was implemented. “For nearly eighteen months, Iran held and terrorized Jason for the purpose of gaining negotiating leverage and ultimately exchanging him with the United States for something of value to Iran,” the suit states. 1 of 26 Full Screen Autoplay Close Skip Ad × The scenes of three Americans after their release by Iran View Photos A historic deal between Iran and the United States led to the release of long-imprisoned Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini and Marine veteran Amir Mirza Hekmati. In exchange, seven Iranians charged or imprisoned for sanctions violations were granted clemency. Caption A historic deal between Iran and the United States led to the release of long-imprisoned Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian, Christian pastor Saeed Abedini and Marine veteran Amir Mirza Hekmati. In exchange, seven Iranians charged or imprisoned for sanctions violations were granted clemency. Jan. 19, 2016 Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian sits at the Fisher House at the U.S. military medical center in Landstuhl, Germany, after his release from an Iranian prison. He and two other released Americans were flown to Landstuhl for medical evaluations. Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post Buy Photo Wait 1 second to continue. Rezaian; his brother, Ali Rezaian; and their mother, Mary Rezaian, are asking for an unspecified sum for damages under the “terrorism exception” to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. That law generally bars U.S. citizens from suing foreign governments in domestic courts, but exceptions are made for terrorist acts, torture or hostage-taking by countries, including Iran, that the State Department has designated as state sponsors of terrorism. The suit accuses Iran of all three. [10 harrowing details about Jason Rezaian and Yeganeh Salehi’s imprisonment in Iran] Rezaian and Salehi, who was born in Iran and married Rezaian there, were arrested on July 22, 2014, by Iranian agents wearing surgical masks who forced their way into the couple’s apartment and took them for questioning at Evin prison, a notorious site for political prisoners. Salehi was freed 71 days later on a $32,000 bail provided by her brother-in-law, Ali. Rezaian was eventually tried and convicted on espionage and related charges, according to Iranian state media accounts. But the Iranian government has never officially disclosed the specifics of his conviction in a closed-door trial or the sentence imposed by a judge known for meting out harsh punishments. The lawsuit provides details of Rezaian’s incarceration that had never before been publicly revealed. Both Rezaian and Salehi were repeatedly subjected to psychological and physical abuse during lengthy interrogations, the suit says. Their captors at turns threatened to dismember or execute them. Interrogated in isolation and often deprived of sleep, each also was warned that the other might be maimed or executed, and that the same fate could befall other family members in Iran, according to the filing. [Detention takes ‘devastating toll’ on Post reporter locked up in Iran] Jason Rezaian, second from left, stands in front of journalists with, from left, mother Mary Rezaian, wife Yeganeh Salehi and brother Ali Rezaian at the U.S. military medical center at Landstuhl, Germany, where Jason and two other Americans released from an Iranian prison were examined in January. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post) The ordeal was so intense that Rezaian, Salehi and Rezaian’s brother, Ali, all contemplated suicide, the suit says. Now — almost nine months after Rezaian and four other U.S. citizens were released on the day the nuclear deal was implemented — Salehi, the Rezaian brothers and their mother are still afflicted with trauma and guilt, according to the suit. “For 544 days, Jason suffered such physical mistreatment and severe psychological abuse in Evin Prison that he will never be the same,” the suit states. “He will require specialized medical and other treatment for the rest of his life.” Salehi is not a plaintiff in the suit. Nor is The Washington Post. Rezaian is on leave from The Post for a year as a Nieman fellow at Harvard University. “Iran’s unconscionable actions have inflicted deep and lasting wounds on The Washington Post’s Jason Rezaian and his family,” said Executive Editor Martin Baron, who during the reporter’s imprisonment often criticized what he called Iran’s “system of injustice.” “This legal filing is a stark telling of Iran’s brutal and heartless treatment of an innocent journalist and his wife, and the impact on those who love him. While this legal action is being taken solely by Jason and his family, The Post continues to support the Rezaians through their long and painful recovery.’’ The Rezaian lawsuit is the latest attempt by Americans to have the U.S. justice system provide compensation for harms inflicted by the Iranian government — in particular, by the powerful and hard-line Revolutionary Guard Corps, which fiercely opposed the nuclear deal and has tried to thwart many initiatives of President Hassan Rouhani, a relative pragmatist. The corps is named as a co-defendant in the suit. “This was really one of the few ways they felt they could try to hold Iran publicly accountable,” said David Bowker, Rezaian’s attorney. “Ideally, it will deter this kind of behavior toward other innocent people.” Rezaian and his family declined to discuss the case, referring questions to their lawyer. The Iranian mission to the United Nations did not reply to an email requesting comment. In a number of suits brought against it over the years, Iran has not responded, resulting in default judgments. Congress and U.S. courts have provided a legal framework for Americans to sue Iran and be compensated. The State Department has labeled Iran the top state sponsor of terrorism in the world. Sudan and Syria are also on the list. In April, the Supreme Court upheld a law allowing American victims of terrorism and their families to collect almost $2 billion in seized Iranian assets. The case involved relatives of people killed or injured in the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut. Iran labeled the decision “confiscation” and “theft.” The closest precedent to Rezaian’s case involves Nik Moradi, an Iranian American who was seized during a family visit in 2007 and accused of spying for the United States. More than six months before his release on bail, he said, he was subjected to physical and mental torture during interrogations. In 2013, Moradi and his wife sued Iran in U.S. federal court under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. The couple was awarded $20 million in a default judgment after Iran failed to respond. One possible venue for securing payment on a judgment is the Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, created last year by Congress to compensate the Americans held hostage in Iran during the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran after the 1979 revolution. It also set aside money for victims with court judgments against state sponsors of terrorism, funded by money from a civil penalty paid by BNP Paribas bank for violating sanctions against Iran, Cuba and Sudan. The lawsuit provides dark glimpses of Rezaian’s 50 days in solitary confinement in a small, dank, cockroach-infested cell. Anxiety and depression made him hallucinate, as he perceived the walls moving and talking. The cell was constantly lighted, and a noisy fan hindered his sleep. Rezaian slept on the floor, and prison officials eventually gave him tranquilizers to induce sleep. His food sometimes had concrete, rocks, dirt and other inedible objects mixed in. [Plane leaves Iran with Post reporter, other Americans, in prisoner swap] “During his time in solitary confinement, Jason believed he was losing his mind,” the suit says. In the initial months of his imprisonment, Rezaian was taken blindfolded several times a day to an underground room for interrogations that lasted hours. He was forced to write down his answers, which prison officials translated into Farsi before trying to coerce him to sign without explaining the translations. In an effort to get Rezaian to confess to espionage, the suit says, one interrogator threatened him with beheading. Another held out the carrot of a video confession as his only chance for freedom. “They threatened Jason with physical mutilation, such as cutting off his limbs, and repeatedly told Jason that he would never see Yeganeh alive again,” the suit says. Though Salehi is not a plaintiff, her agony is clear in the suit’s dry legalese. During her detention, Salehi was blindfolded as interrogators hit the table, broke glass and kicked her chair, startling her. One interrogator threatened to cut off her left leg and right hand or arm. They told her they would throw her husband off a cliff if she did not incriminate him. By the time she was released, her legs would go numb and she sometimes fainted when sitting down. She had to shear off her hair because it was so matted. She had skin lesions. On her infrequent visits to the prison to see her husband, she sometimes was made to don a prison uniform and told she might be detained again, the suit says. Convinced that her husband would die in Evin prison, she considered killing herself to draw attention to his plight. Ali Rezaian, who quit his job to work full time campaigning for his brother’s release, also grew despondent, according to the suit. Iranian agents tailed him when he went to Geneva to appeal for help from the U.N. Human Rights Council, and his mother was held against her will in Iran. [Jason Rezaian works to reclaim his life after return to the U.S.] “He contemplated suicide in the fall of 2015, having lost faith that his brother would ever be released,” the suit states. “At the time, Ali believed that only by ending his own life could he prompt action by defendants or others, to free Jason.” Jason Rezaian now experiences depression, sleeplessness, short-term memory loss and other symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder, the suit says. He grows anxious in large crowds, fears for his family’s safety and has grown more “detached” from them. He sees a psychologist. “Plaintiffs live in constant fear that Iranian agents are spying on them, plotting additional acts of terrorism and planning ways to hurt them and their family members again,” the suit says. Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report. Read more: Rezaian’s wife and mother recall tortuous final hours in Iran A triumphant return for Jason Rezaian

Jason Rezaian has had time to decompress and re-acclimate to life in the US after being released from Iranian detention in January—and now he's ready to sue. The Washington Post journalist and his family filed a complaint Monday in DC's US District Court against the Iranian government, claiming his captors wanted to use him as a negotiating pawn to "extort" the US in its dealings with Iran over its nuclear program, the Post reports. "For nearly eighteen months, Iran held and terrorized Jason for the purpose of gaining negotiating leverage and ultimately exchanging him with the United States for something of value to Iran," the suit reads. And in his suit, Rezaian says he was indeed told by Iranian officials of this "value" he held in case a prisoner swap was broached. The suit, filed on behalf of the reporter, his brother, and his mother, is looking to get around a Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act mandate that US citizens can't sue foreign states in domestic courts; his complaint is calling into play a "terrorism exception" clause that makes an exception for hostage-taking, terrorist acts, and torture (of which Rezaian claims all three) that takes place at the hands of countries deemed a state sponsor of terrorism by the US State Department. "For 544 days, Jason suffered such physical mistreatment and severe psychological abuse … that he will never be the same," the suit notes. "He will require specialized medical and other treatment for the rest of his life."

Historically, most farm programs have been implemented at the county office level. The current county-based delivery structure originated in the 1930s, when the first agricultural acts established farm support programs. At that time, more than one-fourth of all Americans engaged in farming, and the lack of an extensive communication and transportation network limited the geographic boundaries that could be effectively served by a single field office. In addition, most farm programs required farmers to visit the local office to learn about and sign up for these programs. FSA staff assisted farmers in completing the administrative requirements, including the necessary paperwork, associated with the programs. Over the last 60 years, the number of farms in the United States has declined significantly, as has the number of people engaged in farming. Improvements in communication and transportation in rural areas have mitigated some of the problems associated with large distances between farmers and program resources. Additionally, two recent legislative changes have significantly affected USDA’s delivery of farm programs. The Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-354, Oct. 13, 1994) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to streamline and reorganize USDA to achieve greater efficiency, effectiveness, and economies in its organization and management of programs and activities. In addition, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-127, Apr. 4, 1996) fundamentally changed the federal government’s role in supporting production agriculture by replacing traditional commodity programs and reducing many of the administrative requirements related to the remaining agriculture programs. Prior to the 1996 act, farmers participating in federal commodity programs were restricted to planting certain types and amounts of crops. Following the 1996 act, farmers are expected to plant and market crops by considering market conditions rather than by relying on government programs. As a result of the 1994 act, USDA has closed more than 300 offices, or about 14 percent of the 2,773 offices that were operating at the end of 1994. These closures required the farmers served by those offices to travel to a neighboring county for assistance. In addition to these office closings, USDA reduced FSA’s nonfederal staff from 13,432 in 1995 to 11,399 in 1997, a reduction of 2,033 employees, or about 15 percent. According to the 1998 budget proposal, USDA is scheduled to close 500 additional offices and reduce FSA’s county office staff by an additional 57 percent, from 11,399 employees in 1997 to 4,879 by 2002. The proposal’s estimated savings would total more than $1 billion for the 6 years through 2002. To date, USDA’s reductions in county office staff have been achieved primarily by reducing the staff at larger county offices and by closing or consolidating smaller county offices (those with three or fewer employees). Furthermore, USDA is undertaking an effort to streamline its administrative activities at the state and national level, which may affect the quality of service farmers receive. In December 1997, the Secretary of Agriculture approved a plan that will consolidate a number of administrative activities at headquarters and in state offices. The plan establishes a Support Services Bureau in headquarters and one state administrative support unit in each state. This organization will provide administrative services—including financial management, human resources, services supporting civil rights, information technology, and management services (including procurement)—to field-based agencies. USDA also has contracted for an independent study to examine FSA, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the Rural Development mission area for opportunities to improve overall customer service and the efficiency of the delivery system. The results of this study, expected to be completed in October 1998, will be incorporated into the future iterations of FSA’s strategic plan. Despite recent office closings and staff reductions, most farmers continue to be very satisfied with the quality of service they have been receiving from USDA, according to a USDA survey and our discussions with farmers. In USDA’s 1997 national survey, 90 percent of the more than 4,000 respondents said that they were very satisfied with the service they received from their county office and that local staff were responsive to their needs, provided reliable service, and showed empathy towards customers when conducting business. In addition, the participants said that “personalized face-to-face service” was important to them. In fact, when asked to identify alternative ways of doing business with the county office, such as by computer or telephone, nearly 60 percent of the farmers said that they did not want any changes and preferred to continue to conduct most business in person. According to all 60 farmers we spoke with by telephone, the quality of service in late 1997 was the same or better than it was in 1995, despite staff reductions and office closures. These farmers lived in all parts of the nation and had participated in the Conservation Reserve Program, the farm loan programs, and/or the commodity programs. In some cases, these farmers lived in counties in which their local county office had been closed. They stated that the quality of service was high because FSA staff were efficient and knowledgeable. One farmer said that service in the county office was good because the county office employees took the time to become familiar with each farmer’s operation. Farmers we spoke with were particularly pleased with FSA staff’s performance in the following areas: Completing paperwork. FSA staff have historically completed most farmers’ paperwork for the commodity programs for them. FSA staff told us that by completing the paperwork, they reduce the possibility of errors that would occur if farmers completed the paperwork on their own. Many farmers we talked to said that they like having FSA staff fill out their paperwork because it is very complex and they would have difficulty doing it by themselves. Storing and maintaining records. FSA staff maintain farmers’ commodity program records because, according to one FSA county executive director, many farmers like FSA to keep their historical farming records, such as acreage reports, on file in case farm programs change and the information is needed to establish eligibility for the new programs. Reminding farmers about key sign-up dates. FSA uses mail and telephone calls to remind farmers of key dates for enrolling in a program because officials are concerned that some farmers may otherwise forget to sign up. One farmer said that he appreciated receiving postcards from his county office when it was time for him to visit the office. Under the commodity programs, for example, FSA staff reminded farmers 15 days prior to the ending date of a sign-up period that they had not enrolled in the current year’s programs. Providing prompt walk-in service. At most county offices, farmers can visit without an appointment and receive prompt service for commodity programs. This service could range from answering simple questions to filling out a farmer’s paperwork. Farmers like the flexibility of coming into the office when it is convenient for them—when the weather is bad, for instance, without having to make an appointment. In commenting on a draft of this report, FSA officials noted that while the results of USDA’s survey and our discussions with farmers indicate that most farmers are satisfied with the service that they receive, some are not. For example, some small and minority farmers involved in the farm loan programs have criticized USDA recently for not providing adequate service. FSA officials stated that they would like to provide a better level of service for participants in the farm loan programs, but they lack adequately trained staff. As of December 1997, FSA had 2,396 offices and 11,399 county office employees. These office and staffing levels reflect the closing of more than 300 offices and staff reductions of about 15 percent since December 1994. If the 1998 budget proposal to further reduce staffing by an additional 50 percent and to close an additional 500 offices were carried out, FSA would average about two to three employees per office, in comparison with the current average of about five. As we have previously reported, county offices need a minimum of two staff just to conduct the administrative functions for maintaining basic office operations, such as obtaining and managing office space and processing the paperwork for the payroll. As a result, FSA staff in these smaller offices will have less time to provide service to farmers than they did when county offices were staffed more fully. The proposed staffing reductions will result in more county office closures than the 500 proposed, according to FSA officials we interviewed. As FSA closes offices, farmers will have to travel farther and visit offices that serve more farmers. Although they stated that they are still receiving quality service, some farmers we spoke with whose county office had recently closed have already experienced the service impacts associated with these changes. For example, according to one farmer—whose current county office is 45 miles away compared with his former office, which was 10 miles away—the staff at the new office did not have personal knowledge of his specific operations, such as the crops he grows, the farming techniques he uses, and the programs in which he normally participates. FSA officials recognize that additional staff reductions and office closings will reduce the level of personalized service to farmers and require them to accept greater responsibility for program requirements, including completing paperwork. At the same time, officials recognize that the 1996 act places more responsibility on farmers for planting and marketing decisions. In this regard, FSA officials told us that they are beginning to talk with farmers and the various groups involved in farming about the types of services FSA should provide in the future. We met with USDA officials, including the Associate Administrator for the Farm Service Agency, the Deputy Administrator for Farm Programs, and the Deputy Administrator for Farm Loan Programs. USDA generally agreed with the information presented in the report. In their comments, however, the officials noted that the services provided to farmers vary among the USDA programs. For example, Farm Service Agency officials stated that because the staff for the farm loan programs are not located in each county, these staff are not able to provide the same level of service that farmers participating in the traditional commodity programs received, such as having their paperwork filled out for them. Furthermore, these officials stated that some small and minority farmers have recently criticized USDA for not providing adequate service. We made changes to the report to reflect these concerns. In addition, USDA provided technical and clarifying comments that we incorporated as appropriate. To determine farmers’ opinions of the quality of service FSA provides in county offices, we reviewed selected aspects of the results of USDA’s National Customer Service Survey of farmers in 1997. Specifically, we analyzed and summarized responses on (1) the services that matter the most to farmers and (2) farmers’ general satisfaction with services provided by USDA’s service centers. This survey included over 4,000 farmers nationwide who participated in various farm programs. To verify and update these results, we obtained a database from USDA of the names, location, and phone numbers of farmers who had previously completed a USDA customer service survey. We judgmentally selected 90 farmers who had participated in the Conservation Reserve Program, the farm loan programs, and/or the Acreage Reduction Program in 1995. We were able to contact 60 of these farmers across the nation by telephone to obtain information on the quality of service in FSA county offices in 1997 compared with the quality of service in 1995. Some of these farmers lived in counties in which the local county office had been closed. We also visited FSA officials at headquarters and FSA state and county office officials in eight states to discuss the quality of service farmers currently receive. The offices we visited were located in California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Washington State. In most of these county offices, we met with the county executive director, agricultural credit manager, and farmers from the FSA county committee. We also met with the state executive director in six states and members of the state committee in two states. We conducted our work from October 1997 through April 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 15 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will provide copies to the House and Senate Committees on Agriculture; other interested congressional committees; the Secretary of Agriculture; and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others on request. Please call me at (202) 512-5138 if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Major contributors to this report were Ronald E. Maxon, Jr.; Fred Light; Renee D. McGhee-Lenart; Paul Pansini; Carol Herrnstadt Shulman; and Janice M. Turner. Robert A. Robinson Director, Food and Agriculture Issues 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 impact of actual and proposed staff reductions and office closings by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) on the quality of service to farmers. GAO noted that: (1) FSA's staff reductions and office closures to date do not appear to have affected the quality of service provided to farmers; (2) according to the Department of Agriculture's 1997 customer survey and GAO's recent discussions with farmers and FSA officials, most farmers are highly satisfied with the service they receive from their local office of FSA; (3) farmers are still generally able to receive prompt service when they walk into their county office and have FSA staff complete most of their required paperwork; (4) if FSA's staffing continues to be reduced and county offices are closed, however, the traditional level of service provided to farmers is likely to decrease; and (5) among other things, farmers will be required to accept greater responsibility for program requirements, including completing paperwork; with less assistance from agency staff, however, this change is consistent with changes in the 1996 Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, which reduces federal controls over production and places more responsibility on farmers for planting and marketing decisions.

Image copyright EPA Image caption Mr Duterte made the claim in a speech to Filipino expatriates Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has said he stabbed a person to death when he was a teenager. "At 16, I killed someone," he told Filipinos in the Vietnamese city of Da Nang, where he is attending a regional summit. He said he stabbed the person "just over a look". His spokesman later said his remarks had been "in jest". Mr Duterte has previously said he killed criminal suspects as mayor of the city of Davao. The Filipino leader is attending the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit, alongside regional leaders and US President Donald Trump. He has presided over a massive crackdown on crime in the Philippines, which critics allege undermines fundamental human rights. Mr Duterte has encouraged extrajudicial killings of those involved in the drugs trade, and said he would "be happy to slaughter" three million drug addicts in the country. Addressing the Filipino community in Da Nang, he said he had killed a person during his violent teenage years, when he said he was in numerous fights and "in and out of jail". But a spokesman for the president, Harry Roque, told the AFP news agency that the remarks were "in jest" and the Filipino leader often used "colourful language" when addressing Filipinos overseas. Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption President Duterte said last year that he shot dead three men while mayor of Davao Mr Duterte has previously said he possibly killed someone while a teenager. In 2015 he told the Philippines edition of Esquire magazine that during "a tumultuous fight in the beach" when he was 17, "maybe I stabbed somebody to death". It is not clear if he was referring to the same incident in his speech. He also claims to have thrown corrupt officials out of helicopters, warning officials he would do it again if they embezzled financial aid. His spokesman described that claim as an "urban legend". Speaking about human rights during his Vietnam visit, Mr Duterte proposed a "world summit" on the issue - but not looking solely at human rights abuses in the Philippines. "What makes the death of people in the Philippines more important than the rest of the children in the world that were massacred and killed?" the Manila Bulletin quoted him as saying. Since he took office, police say they have killed almost 4,000 people in anti-drug operations. More than 2,000 others have been killed in connection with drug-related crimes. In September, the proposed budget for the human rights commission investigating the deaths was cut to 1,000 pesos - the equivalent of $20 (£15). It had asked for 1.72bn pesos ($34m). Mr Duterte is due to hold bilateral talks with US President Donald Trump in the Philippines in the coming days - the first meeting between the pair. The Philippines president was adversarial towards Mr Trump's predecessor Barack Obama, labelling him a "son of a whore." Mr Obama cancelled their scheduled meeting. ||||| (CNN) The leader of the Philippines has told a gathering of Filipino expatriates that he killed someone when he was a teenager. Referencing human rights criticisms of his policies, Duterte said that he wasn't afraid to go to jail, and apparently used the anecdote to illustrate that. "Jail? Jeez. When I was a teenager, I was in and out of jail," he said , in a mixture of Tagalog and English. "One fight there, another here -- at the age of 16, I killed someone. A person, really. During a fight. Stabbing. That was when I was 16 years old, just because we just looked at each other," he added, prompting laughter from the audience. The controversial leader, who was elected largely on a platform of zero-tolerance against the Philippines' drug scourge, suggested that his approach to the war on drugs, mirrored that of his young self. His approach was "even more so as president," he said. "You f**k with my countrymen, I won't let you off the hook. Never mind about the human rights advocates." Duterte's spokesman Harry Roque told CNN affiliate CNN Philippines in a text: "I think it was in jest. The President uses colorful language when with Pinoys overseas," using another word for Filipinos. Duterte is due to meet US President Donald Trump who arrived in Vietnam Friday for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) summit. Trump travels to the Philippines on Sunday for meetings with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). JUST WATCHED Philippines spokesman: Duterte and Trump 'alike' Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Philippines spokesman: Duterte and Trump 'alike' 08:29 Previous allusion? In 2015, before his remarkable run to the presidency, he told the Philippines edition of Esquire that he had "maybe" killed someone by stabbing them when he was 17. "There was a tumultuous fight in the beach," he said in the interview. "We were young men then and we went to this beach and we were drinking and suddenly there was this ... maybe I stabbed somebody to death ... something like that." Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. Speaking at a business forum in Manila in December 2016, Duterte admitted killing suspected criminals during his time as mayor of Davao City. Hide Caption 1 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. The day after Trump won the US presidential election in November 2016, Duterte said he and Trump share some traits. Hide Caption 2 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. After reports emerged of a potentially blocked arms sale, Duterte told CNN Philippines in November 2016 that he would turn to Russia for weapons. Hide Caption 3 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. During a state visit to China in October 2016, Duterte announced his economic and military 'separation' from the US. Hide Caption 4 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. In October 2016 Duterte expressed growing hostility with the US president. Hide Caption 5 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. After US president Barack Obama said he would raise extrajudicial killings in a meeting with Duterte, the Philippines President responded angrily on September 5, first in English then in Tagalog. As a result, Obama canceled the meeting. Hide Caption 6 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. As he addressed troops at the country's Armed Forces Central Command Headquarters on August 5, Duterte recounted U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's visit to the country, saying in Tagalog that he was feuding with U.S. Ambassador to the Philippines Philip Goldberg. Hide Caption 7 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. The Philippines president-elect effectively said he supported vigilantism against drug dealers and criminals in a nationally televised speech in June 2016. Hide Caption 8 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. Foreign diplomats weighing in on Rodrigo Duterte's controversial remarks did not sit well with the then-mayor. Hide Caption 9 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. Duterte apologized to the Pope after cursing him for the traffic he caused during a 2015 Papal visit to the Philippines. Hide Caption 10 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. In September 2016, Duterte likened himself to the Nazi leader and announced that he wants to kill millions of drug addicts. Hide Caption 11 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. Speaking at a press conference to unveil his new cabinet on May 31 2016, Rodrigo Duterte said journalists killed on the job in the Philippines were often corrupt. Hide Caption 12 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. During the third and last presidential debate, Duterte had said that he would plant a Philippine flag in disputed territories should China refuse to recognize a favorable ruling for the Philippines. Hide Caption 13 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. Duterte made international headlines in April 2016 with his inflammatory comments on the 1989 rape and murder of an Australian missionary that took place in Davao City. Hide Caption 14 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. He also lashed out at the womens' group that filed a complaint against him before the Commission on Human Rights (CHR). Hide Caption 15 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. At a CNN Philippines Townhall event in February 2016, Duterte, admitted that he had three girlfriends and a common-law wife. His marriage to Elizabeth Zimmerman was annulled due to his womanizing, but he denied this meant he objectified women. Hide Caption 16 of 17 Photos: Rodrigo Duterte has said some outrageous things. Although he later denied the accusations, the former Davao City mayor admitted his links to the alleged Davao death squad in a May 2015 broadcast of his local television talk show. Hide Caption 17 of 17 History of killing On top of his controversial war on drugs , which has seen thousands of suspected drug users and pushers killed by police and vigilantes, Duterte has previously claimed to have personally killed people. Late last year he admitted killing suspected criminals during his time as mayor of Davao City. "In Davao, I used to do it personally. Just to show the guys that, if I can do it, why can't you?" Duterte said. "And (I'd) go around Davao with a motorcycle, with a big bike around, and I would just patrol the streets, and looking for trouble also. I was really looking for an encounter so I could kill." He's said that he had taken part in at least one raid on suspected kidnappers during his tenure as mayor, which ended in the suspects' deaths. More than 1,000 people were killed by the DDS while Duterte was mayor from 1988 until 2013. His spokesman, Martin Andanar, has denied that he was involved. In a televised speech, also in late 2016, he said had previously thrown someone off a helicopter and threatened the same fate to anyone misusing public funds. When asked if the event actually happened -- and if the person killed was a kidnapper, as local media was reporting -- Martin Andanar, the presidential communications secretary, told CNN: "It happened; he said it." Duterte later walked back the remarks, claiming he was joking. ||||| Rodrigo Duterte claims he killed a person as a teenager, in defiant speech to promote his drug war before summit of world leaders Philippines president says he once stabbed someone to death The Philippine president, Rodrigo Duterte, has said he stabbed a person to death as a teenager, in a defiant speech to promote his drug war ahead of a summit of world leaders in Manila. Speaking to the local Filipino community in the Vietnamese city of Da Nang on Thursday, Duterte also threatened to slap a UN rights rapporteur if he met her, and used obscene language to hit back at critics of his deadly drugs crackdown. “When I was a teenager, I would go in and out of jail. I’d have rumbles here, rumbles there,” said Duterte, who is in Da Nang for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit. “At the age of 16, I already killed someone. A real person, a rumble, a stabbing. I was just 16 years old. It was just over a look. How much more now that I am president?” Duterte won last year’s presidential elections after promising to eradicate illegal drugs with an unprecedented crackdown that would see up to 100,000 people killed. Since he took office 16 months ago, police say they have killed 3,967 people. Another 2,290 people were murdered in drug-related crimes, while thousands of other deaths remain unsolved, according to government data. Duterte, 72, remains popular with many Filipinos who believe he is making society safer. But critics at home and abroad say he is orchestrating a campaign of extrajudicial mass murder, carried out by corrupt police and hired vigilantes. He at times denies inciting police or others to kill, but also consistently generates headlines for his abusive language and incendiary comments defending the drug war. Duterte said last year he would be “happy to slaughter” 3 million drug addicts and branded then US president Barack Obama a “son of a whore” for criticising the crackdown. Duterte also said in December last year that he had personally shot dead criminal suspects when he was mayor of southern Davao city to set an example for the police. His then spokesman later sought to clarify the remarks, saying the killings took place during a “legitimate police action”. Esquire magazine quoted Duterte as saying in an interview before he became president that he “maybe” stabbed someone to death when he was 17 years old, in what may be a reference to the incident described in Da Nang. In an election campaign rally, Duterte also said he was expelled from college for shooting a fellow student who was insulting him. The victim reportedly survived. Duterte’s aides have repeatedly told journalists not to believe everything the president says, cautioning that he often jokes or indulges in “hyperbole”. His new spokesman, Harry Roque, indicated that may be the case with his stabbing-to-death claim. “I think it was in jest. The Pres uses colourful language when w Pinoys (Filipinos) overseas,” Roque said in a text message. In Da Nang, Duterte also targeted the United Nations’ special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, Agnes Callamard, who has been a frequent critic of the drug war. “This rapporteur,” he said, after referring to Callamard by name. “I will slap her in front of you. Why? Because you are insulting me.” Duterte’s latest comments come days before he hosts the US president, Donald Trump, and other leaders for the Association of South-east Asian Nations (Asean) summit. Trump is due to fly into Manila from Vietnam along with other world leaders on Sunday evening before two days of talks. Trump has praised Duterte’s handling of the drug war, telling the Philippine leader in a telephone call in April that he was doing a “great job”. Human rights campaigners have said the summit will be a public relations coup for Duterte, with Trump and other leaders expected to ignore the drug war controversy. “Duterte will enjoy the gift of tacit silence from east Asian leaders on his murderous drug war during the upcoming summit,” Phelim Kine, the deputy Asia director of Human Rights Watch, told AFP. Adding to a sense of confidence ahead of the event, Duterte on Thursday also proposed hosting a global summit on human rights in which all nations would be placed under the microscope. “Let us investigate all violations of human rights committed by all governments,” he said, specifically naming the US, France and Russia.

Will President Trump meet face-to-face with a killer while in Asia? Depends on how literally you take the word of Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, who on Thursday said, "At the age of 16, I already killed someone. A real person, a rumble, a stabbing. I was just 16 years old. It was just over a look." A rep for the president, however, tells the AFP the remark was made "in jest," and says Duterte regularly uses "colorful language" when addressing Filipinos overseas, as he was doing while in Da Nang, Vietnam. CNN reports the comments were made in the context of discussing human right advocates who are no fans of his. He expressed that jail didn't frighten him, and "apparently used the anecdote to illustrate that." He also said in part, "Jail? Jeez. When I was a teenager, I was in and out of jail." The BBC reports it's not the first time Duterte has referenced a teenage killing, and quotes him as saying in 2015 that during "a tumultuous fight in the beach" around the age of 17, "maybe I stabbed somebody to death."

The 104th Congress is moving to make major changes in AFDC, the nation’s largest cash assistance program for needy families with children. Under consideration are limiting the number of years that cash assistance may be received, capping benefit increases for mothers on welfare who have additional children, denying cash assistance to unwed mothers under 18 years old, and transforming AFDC from entitlement status to a block grant administered by states. Also under consideration are the type and extent of work requirements to be established. In 1988, the Congress created the JOBS program to transform AFDC into a transitional program geared toward helping parents become employed and avoid long-term welfare dependence. Under JOBS, states are to assess the needs and skills of AFDC recipients, prepare them for employment through education and training as needed, and place them in jobs. We reported earlier that while states have made progress in implementing JOBS, only a small percentage of the almost 4.6 million adults on AFDC participated in work-preparation activities in fiscal year 1993. Moreover, little is known about the JOBS program’s progress in moving parents into employment and reducing their dependence on welfare. To help the Congress as it considers welfare reform, the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on Finance requested us to provide information on (1) examples of county or local programs that stressed job placement, subsidized employment, or work-experience positions for welfare recipients; (2) the extent to which county JOBS programs nationwide emphasized these employment-focused activities; and (3) factors that hinder program administrators’ efforts to move welfare recipients into jobs. Through AFDC, the federal government and the states provide cash assistance to needy families with children who lack support from one or both parents because of death, absence, incapacity, or unemployment. As shown in figure 1.1, since 1970, the number of female-headed families, including those headed by women who have never married, has more than doubled, as has the number of families receiving AFDC. According to a Congressional Budget Office study, the growth in female-headed families, especially those headed by females who had never been married, accounted for about one-half of the sharp increase of 1.2 million in the number of AFDC families between 1989 and 1993. Forecasting AFDC Caseloads, With an Emphasis on Economic Factors, Congressional Budget Office Staff Memorandum (Washington, D.C.: 1993), pp. 1, 3. mothers receiving AFDC who had never been married has doubled, from 21 percent in 1976 to 52 percent in 1992. About 70 percent of families receiving benefits have 1 or 2 children. While most AFDC recipients are single mothers, these women are a diverse group, making use of the program in different ways. For example, one study has estimated the total time that those receiving AFDC at a point in time can be expected to receive benefits, as shown in figure 1.2. This analysis indicates that 9 percent of these recipients are using AFDC for only a short time—2 years or less. About 76 percent, however, are receiving AFDC benefits for a total of 5 years or more, when all moves on and off welfare are considered. According to these data, under a 5-year limit on receipt of cash assistance—a measure included in the House welfare reform bill—about three-fourths of those on AFDC may be expected to hit the time limit and need to support themselves through employment or other means. This prospect poses a formidable challenge for many AFDC recipients who have limited education, job skills, and work experience. About 45 percent of all AFDC recipients, for example, have less than a high school diploma.Surveys of several thousand AFDC recipients expected to participate in JOBS in selected sites showed that at least one-third had extremely low literacy skills and between one-fourth and more than one-half lacked prior work experience. Over one-fourth thought they could not prepare for work because they or their family members had health or emotional problems.Such recipients are at risk of long-term welfare dependence. We reported previously that states have made some progress in working with some of these recipients but that many remain unserved. The JOBS program, begun in 1989, was designed to improve upon the performance of previous welfare-to-work programs and help combat long-term welfare dependence. Research studies conducted up to then showed that employment training programs for welfare recipients could have a positive but generally modest effect on increased earnings and reduced welfare costs. They also showed that programs that emphasized low-cost services, such as job search, generally did not help welfare recipients get higher paying jobs than they would have without the programs or help the more disadvantaged. It was hoped that JOBS could improve upon previous programs’ performance by reaching further into the AFDC caseload and providing more comprehensive services, including education and training, to help parents find jobs that would end their dependence on welfare. To this end, under JOBS, states are to (1) provide a broad range of education, training, and employment-related activities; (2) increase the number of AFDC recipients participating in these activities; (3) target resources to the hard-to-serve; and (4) provide support services, including child care, transportation, work-related, and other support services, such as mental health counseling, if deemed necessary. To encourage states to work towards the federal goal of reducing welfare dependency, the Congress created minimum participation and targeting requirements that states must meet to receive their full share of federal funding. The minimum participation requirements rose from 7 percent of nonexempt AFDC recipients in fiscal year 1991 to 20 percent in fiscal year 1995. Under the targeting requirements, states must spend 55 percent of their JOBS funds on designated target groups. The Congress also expected that performance standards based on outcomes, such as increased employment and earnings and reduced welfare dependency, would be established after the initial implementation of the program. Outcome-related performance standards have not yet been established. (For more information on the current status of these performance standards, see p. 42.) While most states have met the minimum participation requirements, the number of AFDC recipients participating in JOBS remains limited. About one-half of the adults receiving AFDC have been exempted from JOBS, most often because they are caring for a young child. Of those considered nonexempt, states decide how many to serve in JOBS based on the availability of state resources. As shown in figure 1.3, the number participating in JOBS each month, while increasing, has remained limited for fiscal years 1991 through 1993. In 1993, about 11 percent of the 4.6 million adults receiving AFDC were active in JOBS activities each month. Although some individual programs have succeeded in serving most of their nonexempt AFDC recipients, JOBS programs overall served only about one-fourth of the nonexempt population. Federal law requires JOBS programs to make an assessment of employability based on a participant’s educational, child care, and other support services needs; skills and work experiences; and family circumstances. The types of assessments used can range from 5-page surveys filled out by participants to comprehensive career-oriented assessments. If participants are considered job-ready when they enter the program, they may be required to look for work immediately without further employment preparation. Programs have varying criteria on when a participant is considered job-ready. While some local programs encourage all of their participants to look for work before being placed in education, training, or work-related activities, most require some minimum level of education, skills, or work experience before participants are expected to look for work. Within the federal JOBS guidelines, states and localities assess the needs of their JOBS participants, determine the type and intensity of services provided, and set the criteria by which participants are deemed job-ready. They also have discretion to establish the wage level and benefits associated with the employment goal established in the employability development plan. Some programs set wage goals as high as $8 per hour, while others believe that a job at any wage level is an appropriate goal. To help AFDC recipients move towards self-sufficiency, states rely on two federal funding sources. First, about $1 billion of federal JOBS funds has been made available annually in recent years for allocation to the states. States must then commit their own funds to JOBS to match these federal funds. In fiscal year 1993, states used about 70 percent of the federal JOBS funds available to them. Second, the federal government has provided an uncapped source of funds to share with states the costs of providing child care assistance to AFDC recipients in education or training programs or who are employed. In fiscal year 1993, the federal government provided about $1.2 billion of the almost $2 billion spent by states on JOBS and AFDC child care. HHS oversees the JOBS program at the federal level and state AFDC agencies supervise it. At the local level, JOBS is administered either by the state AFDC office or by county officials. Before using JOBS funds to purchase services for participants, programs must make full use of the services and resources available in their communities without charge to AFDC recipients. Programs may also contract with other organizations for services. As a result, programs rely heavily on a variety of community resources, such as Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) agencies, adult basic education programs, high schools, the state employment service, Head Start, and community colleges. To identify welfare-to-work programs that strongly emphasize employment or work for their welfare recipients, through job-placement activities, subsidized employment, or work-experience positions, we reviewed welfare-to-work evaluations and HHS program data and contacted HHS officials and welfare experts. We then visited selected programs in Riverside County and San Jose, California; Athens, Ohio; and New York, New York. Also, in Charleston, West Virginia, we spoke with six JOBS officials representing 11 West Virginia counties. Where results from impact evaluations were available, they are included in the text; however, only two of the five programs have been rigorously evaluated to measure program effects. We also note that the program cost data cited may not be comparable among the different programs described. To determine the extent to which county JOBS programs nationwide used these employment-focused elements and to identify factors that hinder administrators’ efforts to move AFDC recipients into employment, we collected and analyzed data from a range of sources. To obtain nationally representative data, we randomly sampled 453 of the nation’s 3,141 counties and mailed questionnaires to their JOBS administrators in May 1994. The sample was stratified to ensure representation of the nation’s central-city, suburban, and rural counties. It included the nation’s 10 largest central-city counties, based on the number of female-headed families with children receiving public assistance in 1990. Our analysis of the questionnaire data generally showed few material differences among the responses of the counties comprising the 10 largest central cities, other central-city counties, suburban counties, or rural counties. Consequently, we present the results using combined data from all the strata. See appendix II for more information about our sample. The questionnaire and summaries of the responses are in appendix III. For more information on JOBS program implementation, we spoke with program administrators at HHS and the Department of Labor; representatives of the National Alliance of Business and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; and welfare experts. We also reviewed HHS and congressional welfare reform proposals and analyzed economic data provided by the Bureau of the Census and the Department of Commerce. In addition, we visited JOBS programs in Alameda, Napa, Santa Clara, and Sonoma Counties in California; Franklin County in Ohio; and gathered additional information at a meeting with JOBS administrators from 12 counties in the San Francisco area. We conducted our work between September 1993 and April 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Some local welfare-to-work programs are well-focused on employment, working closely with employers to help participants find jobs or using subsidized employment or work experience to promote work for welfare recipients. We saw this in programs at five locations we visited: Riverside County and San Jose, California; New York, New York; Athens, Ohio; and West Virginia. The programs in these places vary in their costs per participant and other features. Yet they all focus on work as the ultimate goal, with three of the programs—in Riverside County, San Jose, and New York—working closely with employers to move participants into paid employment, and the Athens and West Virginia programs supporting work- experience positions when regular employment was not available. Table 2.1 summarizes selected program features and highlights important differences among the programs. For example, the Riverside County program is administered by a welfare agency and involves all of the county’s JOBS participants. While welfare agencies also operate the Athens and West Virginia programs, their work-experience programs involve only a portion of their JOBS participants. The other programs are not JOBS programs and are not operated by welfare agencies. A nonprofit organization operates the San Jose program, which serves welfare recipients among other individuals in the community. And a for-profit firm runs the New York City program under contract to the state welfare agency; it serves but a small fraction of the JOBS participants in the city. We also note that the Riverside County and San Jose programs have research-documented success in getting more AFDC recipients employed than would have occurred without the programs. A more detailed discussion of these programs follows. The Riverside County JOBS program stresses that its purpose is to place participants in jobs quickly. Researchers believe that this strong employment message may have been one of the key factors in producing results. Using an experimental design to evaluate JOBS programs in six California counties, researchers found that the Riverside County program increased the earnings of single AFDC parents by 49 percent and decreased welfare costs by 15 percent over 3 years. Results in the other five counties were about one-half that level. As shown in figure 2.1, the Riverside County program produced greater net gains than the other counties for both welfare recipients and government budgets, saving almost $3 for every $1 spent by the federal, state, and local governments. Moreover, long-term AFDC recipients, those with little education, and those more job-ready have benefited under Riverside’s approach. Researchers who studied the six California counties believe that Riverside County’s greater positive impacts may be due to a combination of program features. For example, the program had sufficient resources to make efforts to enroll all the AFDC recipients deemed mandatory for JOBS. In addition, it used the threat of reduced AFDC benefits for uncooperative participants to secure their participation in JOBS. In contrast with the other counties evaluated, Riverside also articulated a simple goal: participants are there to get a job and leave welfare as soon as possible. They are, therefore, encouraged to take any job offered, including low-wage jobs, part-time jobs, or jobs without benefits. To help participants get jobs, five full-time job developers provide direct access to employers and support the five JOBS offices that served about 2,000 active JOBS participants each month in 1993. The Riverside program also uses placement standards for its JOBS workers; case managers are expected to place at least 12 participants in employment each month. Stressing the importance of job search along with education in the basic skills of reading, writing, and math also appears to benefit Riverside. In Riverside and the other counties, new participants whose test results indicate that they need basic education have the option of entering the classroom immediately or attending 3 weeks of job search. However, Riverside’s orientation results in proportionately more of its participants being in job search than is the case in most other California counties studied. Also, Riverside encourages those participants in education and training to find jobs quickly. Staff closely monitor these participants and expect those not making progress to look for work. Riverside’s emphasis on short-term job search along with longer-term education may also account for its relatively low average cost of $3,000 per participant in 1993 dollars, compared with other California counties studied. Consistent with its emphasis on moving participants quickly into the work force, Riverside makes less use of basic, vocational, and postsecondary education than some other counties. For example, in Alameda County, which used education extensively, the 1993 average participant cost was $6,600. While the Riverside County results indicate that an emphasis on job placement, among other factors, is important, questions remain about what works best to help welfare recipients get jobs and earn enough to support their families. HHS has contracted with researchers to conduct experimental design studies to provide additional information on the cost effectiveness of higher-cost education and training programs compared with lower-cost programs that emphasize quick entry into jobs. While the Riverside program produced greater earnings increases and welfare savings than in the other counties, about 40 percent of its participants were still on AFDC 3 years after the study began, and many of those who did leave AFDC remained in poverty and possibly at risk of returning to welfare. Some of those that left AFDC may also have continued to receive other forms of public assistance, including Food Stamps and housing subsidies. The researchers also noted that it was not clear that Riverside’s program could be replicated or, if replicated, could produce similar results in other localities nationwide—for example, in inner cities where AFDC recipients may face greater barriers. In addition, while they concluded that the Riverside County results appear not to be fully explained by its local labor market conditions, they cautioned that similar results may not be possible in areas with very poor economic conditions, such as rural areas with high unemployment rates. The Center for Employment Training (CET), a nonprofit organization founded in 1967 and based in San Jose, California, represents another approach to promoting employment that has demonstrated positive results. CET contracts with job training and local welfare programs to provide job skills training, combined with remedial basic education, when needed. Using an experimental design, researchers found that this program increased employment and earnings for minority female single parents on or at risk of becoming dependent on AFDC who volunteered for training. The research study noted that at the end of 12 months, 46 percent of CET participants were working compared with 36 percent of a control group and participants earned 47 percent more on average than the control group. These results were also greater than those for other sites in the study. To help its participants get higher-wage jobs with a potential for upward mobility, CET offers job skills training in a range of occupations for which employers have demonstrated consistent demand. About 28 courses are offered, including child care provider, automated office skills, home health aide, commercial food service, and electronic assembly. Remedial education is integrated into the job skills training curriculum for participants who have basic skill deficiencies, rather than being offered separately. Researchers who have studied the CET program believe that its strong focus on employment and integrated training design are important features. The employment focus is evident in several CET activities. CET’s full-time job developers make contact with employers in the community and meet with participants who are nearing completion of training to help them find appropriate work. The job developers are assisted in their placement efforts by CET’s vocational instructors, who maintain close contacts with local employers. CET also has an industrial advisory board, composed of employers, that meets monthly to provide advice on the types of training equipment to be used and other issues to ensure that the training offered meets the needs of employers. Board members also conduct mock job interviews with participants. One employer we spoke with, manager of a local sheet metal fabrication company, emphasized that his company relies heavily on CET graduates. He believes that this saves him advertising and other hiring costs and guarantees him well-prepared workers. At the time of our visit, he was planning to open a company cafeteria to be staffed with CET graduates. Another key feature, integrated training, provides basic education in a practical context. Participants lacking basic educational skills are entered into job skills training immediately to help maintain their motivation and focus on work. Because basic education is provided within the skills training class itself, participants appear more likely to accept the remedial help and to succeed. Participants attend classes during the normal work week in a setting designed to simulate the workplace, using the tools of their trade under the guidance of instructors with recent industry experience. Individualized instruction allows new participants to enter class on the first day of any week of the year, to proceed at their own pace, and to leave as soon as they have demonstrated the necessary competencies. Training courses average 6 months in length and cost about $6,000 to $7,000 per participant. Another example of a work-focused program is seen in New York City. There, the welfare agency, as part of its work-supplementation program, contracts with a private for-profit firm called America Works. America Works quickly prepares JOBS participants for employment, places them in jobs, and provides counseling and support to ease their transition to work. Staff and resources are devoted to working with employers and supporting clients after job placement to help alleviate any personal problems that may arise and threaten their ability to continue to work. America Works emphasizes the development of good work habits and skills required for entry-level jobs during the short training period it provides participants. Specifically, participants are urged to demonstrate punctuality, reliability, appropriate professional dress and demeanor, a constructive and cooperative attitude, and an ability to get along with others in a work environment. Participants attend a week-long pre-employment class and 6 weeks of business laboratory where they use self-paced computer-assisted office skills programs. Tardiness and absences may result in suspension from the program. Participants who complete the business laboratory are placed by the firm’s job developers with private employers for 4 months of supported work, during which time they are on the payroll of America Works. The America Works payroll in New York City is supported by AFDC grant funds and funds from employers. Upon placement, participants are provided a support system, whereby America Works staff help participants with personal problems, such as creditor or landlord disputes, that interfere with their ability to work. America Works staff believe that their support system for participants who have been newly placed in jobs is key to keeping many of their participants employed. According to data compiled by the New York State welfare agency, about 65 percent of participants in supported work are ultimately hired by the private employers with whom they have been placed. America Works receives about $5,300 from the state’s welfare agency when an AFDC recipient enrolled in America Works remains employed and off AFDC for at least 7 months. Unlike the Riverside and CET programs, the outcomes of the America Works program have not been compared with a comparison or control group to determine whether the effects were due to the program. Some of the America Works participants might have found jobs on their own, especially because many of them were motivated volunteers. While the program’s design screens out those not motivated, the program does work with many long-term welfare recipients with low levels of education. The typical participant is an adult female head of household on AFDC an average of 5 years. Also, the typical participant in America Works has volunteered for the program, has a sporadic history of minimum-wage jobs, and can read and write well enough to complete a brief application. Applicants who need remedial basic education or English language training are referred to other community providers. About one-half of the participants have not completed high school. America Works officials believe that reaching out to employers and responding to their needs is a prime program goal. They noted that employers who take on America Works participants save on placement agency fees as well as costs of advertising for and screening job applicants. In addition, they obtain workers at reduced wage and benefit costs initially, and with lower turnover and related costs. America Works guarantees that employers will be satisfied with participants placed with them or replacements will be found. About 60 percent of the jobs that America Works staff develop are the result of repeat business with satisfied employers. JOBS programs in Athens, Ohio, and West Virginia reveal a different kind of work focus, typified by placing participants in community work- experience positions with public and nonprofit agencies. Welfare officials at the sites we visited indicated that having AFDC recipients perform community service can benefit their communities, in addition to developing participants’ work habits and providing work experience that may lead to paid employment. The JOBS program in Athens County, Ohio, uses work-experience positions to increase the confidence and competency of participants, and in some cases these positions lead to permanent employment. The county’s welfare agency is the largest utilizer of work-experience participants, many of whom are subsequently transferred to the county’s payroll and leave welfare. One office unit within the welfare agency is staffed primarily by work-experience participants, and an estimated three-fourths of the welfare agency’s personnel consist of former welfare recipients. West Virginia, where unemployment rates are among the highest in the nation, uses community work experience extensively to develop and maintain work habits among its JOBS participants. This involves work for various public or nonprofit organizations. Since the 1980s, West Virginia’s welfare-to-work program has promoted the idea that AFDC recipients should contribute to their communities in exchange for their benefits, and work for such organizations has been used to promote work among AFDC recipients, especially men. The state has made greater use of community work experience than most other states, with about 2,500 AFDC recipients enrolled in June 1994, mostly at government agencies but also at nonprofit agencies. Participants often work for an average of 62 hours a month, putting in full 40-hour weeks for some part of the month or part-time hours throughout the month. Single parents with young school-age children, for example, may work during the 6 hours of a normal school day and care for their children at home the remainder of the day, thus saving on child care expenses. West Virginia administrators we spoke with noted that much time, effort, and resources must be devoted to operate a work-experience program. Major work-experience program expenses involve intensive use of JOBS staff to arrange for jobs with employers, screen and match participants to available jobs, and provide follow-up support. JOBS case managers check monthly timesheets and ask to be called if problems arise at the workplace. They rarely visit worksites, however, because they average caseloads of 300 to 400 participants. Based on experimental design studies of the use of work experience in several sites in the 1980s, including some in West Virginia, researchers have concluded that unpaid work experience alone does not increase paid employment, earnings, or welfare savings. However, they also found that these programs could produce benefits for taxpayers through the work performed by welfare recipients. In addition, program administrators and welfare recipients involved generally thought that they had performed meaningful work, although the participants said that they would have preferred to work in paid positions. Based on their review, the researchers estimate that the annual cost of a work-experience position in 1993 dollars would range from $2,000 to $4,000, excluding the AFDC benefit and child care costs. While some county and local organizations have forged links with employers to promote work for welfare recipients, these programs are more the exception than the rule across the nation. A majority of county JOBS programs do not work closely with employers to help their participants find work. Administrators and researchers cited many factors that hinder efforts to find or create employment for welfare recipients, including insufficient staff and resources and poor labor market conditions. In addition, we found that the federal JOBS participation requirements emphasizing the enrollment of eligible persons into JOBS programs without an emphasis on the graduation of enrollees into employment provide programs little incentive to redirect their resources to job-placement efforts. Most programs do not fully use the tools available to help move participants quickly into work. This is demonstrated by the limited emphasis on job development, work incentives, and work activities, including subsidized employment or work experience. Although job development is a potentially important tool for moving JOBS participants into employment, about one-half of the nation’s county JOBS administrators believe that they are not doing enough job development to help JOBS participants find work. In addition to preparing AFDC recipients for employment through education and training, JOBS programs are required to engage in job development to help participants secure jobs. Program officials may also work with employers to identify the types of education and training needed for participants to meet employers’ needs. These job-development activities can play an important role in making JOBS programs more responsive to their local labor markets. While almost all county JOBS programs perform some job-development activities, in most, their job-development resources are limited. We found that JOBS programs rely on a variety of local agencies and organizations, such as JTPA, the Employment Service, and education providers, to perform job-development activities for JOBS participants. While other organizations are involved in helping JOBS participants find work, in most counties, the welfare agency itself takes the lead in job development. However, about one-third of the nation’s programs have no full- or part-time staff dedicated to job-development activities. And while caseworkers may also perform job-development activities, we found that they devote little time to working with employers. More than three-fourths of all JOBS administrators report that caseworkers devote 20 percent or less of their time to job development. In many programs, the extent of job development performed on behalf of JOBS participants is limited and may not meet the needs of the job-ready looking for work. For example, about 60 percent of the nation’s JOBS programs or their contractors arranged job interviews for or marketed to employers only some or few of their job-ready participants. Moreover, about 46 percent or more cited that the program or its contractors worked with each of the following only sometimes or rarely: public employers, private-sector employers, the Chamber of Commerce, or other employer associations. Local administrators themselves also believe that job development is underutilized in JOBS programs. A majority of administrators believe that they did not conduct enough job-development and job-placement activities to meet the needs of their JOBS participants, as illustrated in figure 3.1. Furthermore, a 1994 study of JOBS implementation in 30 localities in 10 states also noted that job- development and job-placement activities are underutilized in JOBS programs. Many JOBS programs nationwide do not make all participants aware of some important incentives to seek employment. To encourage work, the AFDC program provides some assistance to recipients who become employed by temporarily disregarding part of their earnings, including some of those expended for child care, in calculating their AFDC benefits. These income and child care disregards allow AFDC recipients who go to work to avoid the cutback in benefits that would ordinarily result from an increase in earnings. In addition, to further ease the transition to employment, AFDC recipients who earn enough to leave the welfare rolls are eligible for 1 year of child care subsidies if needed and continued Medicaid coverage. Other assistance may be available after AFDC recipients leave the welfare rolls. When the 1 year of transitional Medicaid coverage is exhausted, the children of AFDC recipients may still be covered due to recent changes in Medicaid coverage for all children in families below the poverty line. And the recently expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) will increase some low-wage workers incomes by up to 40 percent. These federal supports can increase the attractiveness of low-wage work. However, many JOBS programs do not inform all their participants of the work incentives that may be available to them. Based on our survey, from 67 to 84 percent of county JOBS programs inform all or almost all of their participants about each of the following: the availability of transitional child care, transitional Medicaid, AFDC income disregards, and child care disregards. However, only about one-half of the nation’s JOBS programs inform all or almost all their participants of the EITC. While we identified about 18 percent of the programs that worked with all or almost all their participants to develop a sample budget demonstrating the benefits available to them when working, about 60 percent of the nation’s JOBS programs reported that they do so for one-half or fewer of their participants. These findings are consistent with other studies showing that those on welfare, as well as welfare and JOBS caseworkers, may not be aware of or understand work incentives. One study of a sample of 30 women in Chicago concluded that the EITC may not provide an incentive to work because few recipients have a clear understanding of how it operates.Another study of welfare administrators found that many did not know that Medicaid coverage was available for certain children in families with incomes up to or, in some cases, beyond the federal poverty line. Almost all JOBS programs encourage participants to engage in job search activities at some point in their enrollment in JOBS, but many job-ready participants do not become employed for a variety of reasons. For JOBS participants who cannot find regular employment, local JOBS programs have the option of using cash wage subsidies to encourage employers to hire them into on-the-job training or work-supplementation programs. Another option is to place participants in work-experience programs. For example, as discussed in chapter 2, West Virginia has used its community work-experience program to promote work among its welfare recipients when jobs were not available. Yet the use of work activities is limited, even though about 70 percent of the administrators reported that one-half or fewer of their job-ready participants became employed during their most recent program year. The distribution of counties according to their placement rates is shown in figure 3.2. The limited extent of work activities is seen in the following numbers: nationwide in mid-1994, of about 586,600 JOBS participants each month, about 59,000 were in work-experience programs, 3,000 were in on-the-job training, and 1,000 were in work-supplementation programs. As shown in figure 3.3, these work activities were little used compared with other JOBS activities. Moreover, more than 80 percent of the nation’s counties have no experience operating work-supplementation programs and almost 50 percent have no experience in on-the-job training. This demonstrates that counties will face a major challenge in supporting the work programs called for in some welfare reform proposals. For example, H.R. 4 requires states to provide work activities for an increasing percentage of those receiving cash assistance or face penalties of up to 5 percent of the state’s block grant. In 1996, states would have to involve 10 percent of all families in work activities, with the requirement rising to 50 percent by 2003. And the administration’s proposal before the 103rd Congress called for those young mothers who do not find unsubsidized employment after 24 months of receiving AFDC to be placed in subsidized minimum-wage jobs. The House bill and the administration’s proposal place a much greater emphasis on work activities than current law. Under both of these proposals, welfare agencies will need to work with many welfare recipients who cannot find jobs on their own. Attention will have to be paid to preparing these recipients for the workplace, because administrators we spoke with emphasized the importance of screening and selecting able and motivated participants to place with employers to maintain employer interest in participating in the programs. This is consistent with our survey results showing that in most counties the typical JOBS participant enrolled in on-the-job training or work supplementation has at least 1 year of previous work experience and high levels of motivation. Also, in most counties, participants in these work activities tended to be more educated than JOBS participants in general. While work activities are little used in JOBS, most administrators believe that they are effective tools that warrant expansion. Of the relatively small number of JOBS administrators currently using work supplementation, 70 percent rated it moderately or highly effective in moving AFDC recipients off welfare and 83 percent wanted to expand their use of it. Of those using on-the-job training, 72 percent thought it at least moderately effective in moving individuals off welfare and 88 percent expressed interest in expanding its use. Almost all counties used work experience, with 76 percent rating it as effective and 84 percent wishing to expand its use. In sites we visited, JOBS participants had been placed with a range of employers and other community organizations. They performed community service work with a county planning office, the Indian Health Service, and a community food bank. In addition, through the work-supplementation program, participants had found jobs at a car dealership, a large health care provider, and a small doctor’s office. In one site, the work-supplementation program helped refugees receiving AFDC gain employment at worksites where they could improve their English-language skills. According to the program supervisor, some of the refugees had been in English as a Second Language classes for several years but had not progressed to employment. Of those program administrators not currently using on-the-job training, about 32 percent believed it to be moderately or highly effective in moving recipients off AFDC and about three-fourths supported expansion. At least one-half of the administrators without work-supplementation programs also wanted to develop or expand these programs, although they were less sure about the effectiveness of such programs. Evaluations of on-the-job training and work-supplementation programs have shown positive results in terms of increased employment and earnings for welfare recipients, but did not conclude that the programs produced welfare savings. As discussed in chapter 2, evaluations of work-experience programs have shown that they offer productive work for participants and benefits to taxpayers, but do not generally produce increased earnings, employment rates, or welfare savings. While JOBS administrators acknowledged that they did not work enough with employers to help participants find jobs, they identified several administrative and programmatic factors that hindered their efforts. Further, administrators and researchers identified certain labor market conditions that hinder efforts to place AFDC recipients in jobs. Most administrators reported that insufficient staff hindered their efforts to work with employers to place JOBS participants in unsubsidized jobs or work activities. Local program administrators, researchers, and HHS officials have noted that working with employers to find job openings or to create and maintain work-activity positions requires a lot of time and effort on the part of JOBS workers. For example, to operate work-supplementation programs, AFDC grant dollars must be diverted to employers to subsidize wages. Many administrators believe that it is difficult to develop and administer a tracking system to operate such a program. In addition, staff must market their programs to employers and sometimes visit worksites to maintain contact or monitor operations. Economies may be achieved if many participants are placed at a single worksite, but we found that generally only one or two participants are placed with each employer. Administrators believe that they need more staff to work with employers because current JOBS staff and resources are mainly devoted to participant intake and management of often heavy caseloads. According to HHS, JOBS caseloads range from 30 to 400 participants per worker. Administrators we met explained that expansion of job-development and work activities would necessitate shifting current staff from intake and case management functions. They also noted that hiring additional staff is not an option where budgets are constrained. While in some cases resource constraints may limit the number of JOBS staff, they may also affect administrators’ and caseworkers’ decisions about the activities in which they enroll participants. The study of JOBS programs in 10 states referred to earlier noted that the availability of education, training, and employment-related activities tends to drive the placement of participants. For example, as a result of resource constraints, programs would often place participants in activities that were readily available or free of charge rather than create or purchase services that were deemed needed by participants. We also found that funding constraints limited the use of on-the-job training. About one-half of the JOBS administrators cited insufficient funds and one-third cited the high costs of on-the-job training compared with other JOBS activities as a major or moderate hindrance to its expansion.On-the-job training is sometimes more costly to a JOBS program than other activities because many of the educational or other activities in which participants are placed are funded by other providers or programs and do not require expenditures of JOBS funds. For example, a JOBS program may not pay for adult basic education or college courses funded by federal, state, or county providers. Funding constraints also hinder the use of work supplementation, even though this form of employer subsidy is funded by AFDC grants instead of JOBS funds. An official in Texas told us that in states with low AFDC grants, the amount of money that can be diverted to the employer is not sufficient for a wage subsidy. For example, the average AFDC grant in Texas equals $159 a month, providing few dollars to subsidize wages. In 1994, 31 state welfare agencies decided not to include work supplementation in the state JOBS plans they must submit to HHS for approval. As a result, the local programs in these states were barred from operating work-supplementation programs. The current federal JOBS participation and targeting requirements provide little incentive for states to redirect scarce resources to increase their focus on moving AFDC recipients into employment. The JOBS performance measurement system is process-oriented, based on the numbers and types of participants enrolled in activities, and does not include outcome measures, such as the portion of participants who become employed and leave welfare. While the participation requirements have played an important role in encouraging states to serve more participants, including the hard-to-serve, the ultimate goal of JOBS is to increase employment and reduce welfare dependence. Yet states are not required by HHS to report the total number of JOBS participants who find jobs each year and are not held accountable for the number of JOBS participants who become employed. Some program administrators and researchers have noted that programs can meet federal participation requirements by placing participants in readily available JOBS activities more easily and with less cost to their programs than finding them unsubsidized jobs or creating subsidized employment. Because program administrators can meet federal requirements without redirecting scarce resources to focus more on employment, they have little incentive to do so. JOBS programs may, therefore, emphasize getting clients into program activities without also focusing on establishing links with employers to realize the ultimate goal of employment. For example, at one site we visited, a woman had successfully completed several different training programs. Under the current performance system, this individual helps the program meet the federal requirements to receive its full share of federal funding. Yet she remained unemployed and on AFDC. Labor market realities also pose a range of problems for JOBS administrators as they attempt to move AFDC recipients into the workplace. Several factors are important in this regard. Administrators and research studies cite high unemployment and low job growth as hindering programs’ efforts to get jobs for participants. Nearly three-fourths of local JOBS administrators identify current labor market conditions, which are outside their control, as a hindrance to their job-development efforts. Many counties operate JOBS in areas of high unemployment or negligible job growth. For example, in 1993, unemployment rates reached 8 percent or more in 30 percent of the nation’s counties; job growth was 1.5 percent or less in one-half the nation’s counties and negative in about one-third of the counties. While some research has shown that the outlook for job growth nationwide over the next few years is encouraging, in specific locations the number of job openings may not meet local needs. For example, a May 1993 survey of Milwaukee area employers identified about 12,000 full-time job openings, which represented only 20 percent of the jobs needed for the estimated 63,000 welfare recipients and unemployed persons seeking or expected to work. When part-time jobs were included, the number of available jobs represented 35 percent of the total jobs needed. Likewise, JOBS officials in Silicon Valley in California, where many once-booming high-tech computer companies are located, and other areas in California believe that their JOBS participants and staff acting on their behalf operate at a distinct disadvantage because of the increase in competition for positions in general. They noted that they must operate their programs in areas where employers are often faced with a surplus of job applicants, especially for relatively unskilled, entry-level positions. Administrators we surveyed and spoke with emphasized that lack of employer interest also hindered the expansion of work activities. Administrators cited as one contributing factor a federal displacement restriction. Under work-supplementation and work-experience programs, participants may only be placed in positions newly created by employers—not positions that become vacant due to turnover. This prohibition is intended to protect workers from being displaced through layoffs and replaced by federally subsidized JOBS participants. About three-fourths of the administrators operating work-supplementation programs reported that this restriction hindered expansion of their programs and about 46 percent of all administrators said that they probably or definitely would like to use work supplementation for existing positions also. In addition, work-experience positions are restricted to sponsors who serve a public purpose, another restriction that about 72 percent of administrators would like to see changed, allowing them both more as well as a greater variety of employers with which to place participants to help them gain work experience. Like work-supplementation, work-experience positions are also subject to displacement restrictions. While most administrators did not believe that the displacement restriction was currently a factor hindering expansion, about one-half supported placing work-experience participants in existing positions. Administrators we spoke with thought that other workers and individuals could be protected without restricting work programs to new positions only. Local administrators also cited other reasons. For example, for on-the-job training, the JOBS program and employers must generally enter into contracts covering the employment of participants, maintain timekeeping and payroll records subject to audit, develop individual training plans, establish qualitative measures of success, and assess the progress of participants in acquiring jobs skills. Some employers may feel that the wage subsidy they receive—up to one-half of participants’ wages when training is completed—does not adequately compensate them for any extra work they must do. In a work-experience program, while a participating employer gets an unpaid worker, the employer is not compensated for any supervision costs involved. Administrators we met cautioned that the number of available supervisors among employers places an upper limit on the expansion of work experience. Administrators also cited employer concerns about welfare recipients being unprepared for work. Employers’ perceptions may be skewed by unfavorable stereotypes or unsuccessful prior experiences. One study of a welfare-to-work program in an inner-city neighborhood noted that many of the participants who found jobs had problems keeping them for various reasons, including chronic lateness and misunderstandings with supervisors. To overcome these perceptions and problems, program administrators told us that they often select their most capable participants for work activities. While the lack of jobs is a problem in many areas, the low-wage work that is available to many AFDC recipients discourages their movement off AFDC. Our work in 1991 demonstrated that many single mothers will remain near or below the poverty line even if they work at full-time jobs. More recently, we found that in 1993 the typical single mother with a low-wage job had more income than a comparable mother and family on AFDC, but was nevertheless still in poverty. Moreover, a low-wage worker may incur significant job-related costs, such as child care, which could make her family worse off financially than some AFDC families. In addition, employment or increased earnings may affect her receipt of other forms of assistance. For example, the previously cited survey of several thousand AFDC recipients found that 60 percent of the respondents in Atlanta lived in public housing projects or other subsidized housing. As a result, their incentive to find jobs may be affected because increased earnings may cause them to incur significantly increased housing costs. The belief and often the reality that a poor single mother can better provide for her family by being on welfare than by working at a low-wage job plays a critical role in discouraging AFDC recipients from looking for and accepting employment. As figure 3.4 shows, about three-fourths of the JOBS administrators cited the lack of jobs with sufficient wages and benefits as a moderate or major reason that their job-ready clients did not become employed. About 70 percent of administrators also noted that their participants did not become employed because of concerns about losing their AFDC benefits, Medicaid, or housing subsidies. By comparison, about one-half of administrators cited the lack of jobs as a major or moderate reason. One study found that 55 of 69 randomly selected current and former AFDC recipients interviewed in Tennessee and North Carolina said that they were not likely to accept a minimum-wage job that did not provide health insurance for them and their children. Most of the 55 thought that health insurance was a necessity and others said that they could not support their families with a minimum-wage job. Concerns about participants’ abilities to support their families may affect the attitudes of administrators and staff in promoting employment as the ultimate program goal. For example, we found that while about 60 percent of local administrators said that they would definitely encourage a 30-year-old JOBS participant with one child to accept a minimum-wage job with health insurance benefits, only 26 percent would definitely encourage her to accept such a job without health benefits. Recent studies of labor market conditions and the characteristics of welfare recipients indicate that employment training strategies to improve the earnings capacities of welfare recipients through education and training may not lead to earnings increases great enough to allow single parents to support themselves with their own earnings. These studies demonstrate that the supports available to low-wage workers, for example, the EITC, expanded Medicaid coverage, child support payments, and child care subsidies, play an important role in helping families get jobs and remain employed. Our recent work on child care subsidies indicates that assistance with child care has a large effect on the likelihood that poor women will work. Thus, subsidies may help welfare recipients become employed and remain off the welfare rolls. The 104th Congress proposes to fundamentally change AFDC—the nation’s largest cash assistance program for poor families with children. While there is general agreement that reforms should promote work, the Congress is considering the type and extent of work requirements to be linked to the receipt of cash assistance. Whether AFDC continues as an entitlement program or is converted into a block grant, program administrators at the county and local levels will be concerned with moving large numbers of welfare recipients into employment. Our work highlights examples of programs that are well-focused on the ultimate goal of employment—stressing the importance of work for their participants and forging links with employers to identify jobs or create work opportunities where none is available. However, these programs appear more the exception than the rule. Most programs appear to emphasize preparing participants for employment without also making strong efforts to help place their participants in jobs. While we acknowledge that some administrators face factors beyond their control that may limit program choices, including budget constraints and a lack of jobs, other programs facing similar constraints have taken steps that promote work more strongly for their participants. These steps include focusing staff and participants on the importance of employment, working more closely with employers to identify job openings, determining employers’ needs, and helping match recipients’ education and training activities to labor market demands. Even programs that are well-focused on moving AFDC recipients into employment have faced challenges, however. For example, the Riverside County program strongly emphasized moving recipients quickly into jobs; yet after 3 years, about 40 percent of its participants remained on AFDC. Many who became employed remained on AFDC or, if off AFDC, continued to receive other forms of public aid, including Food Stamps or federal housing assistance. And some of those who left AFDC remained in poverty and at risk of returning to AFDC. In those cases where unsubsidized employment is not available or the characteristics of participants do not make them readily employable, strategies like work supplementation or on-the-job training may help welfare recipients become employed. And where regular jobs or subsidized employment are not feasible, work-experience programs may serve as an alternative that promotes work for welfare recipients. Administrators generally supported the use of these work activities. However, they believe that they need more flexibility to design work activities to meet the needs of their participants and local labor markets. In commenting on a draft of this report (see app. IV), HHS’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF) disagreed with our conclusion that JOBS programs do not have a strong employment focus. ACF stated that we did not sufficiently recognize programs’ use of job search or the extent of their job-development activities in evaluating their employment focus. It also stated that we did not acknowledge the many ways that programs could focus on employment and, instead, relied too much on programs’ low use of subsidized employment and work experience to indicate a weak employment focus. We continue to believe, based on all the evidence we gathered, that many JOBS programs nationwide do not have a strong employment focus. More specifically, ACF commented that the report does not recognize job search as an employment-focused activity and its extensive use in JOBS, thus, underrepresenting the employment efforts of JOBS programs. We acknowledge that programs can emphasize employment through their use of job-search activities for participants. As we had shown in figure 3.3, the participants enrolled in job search nationwide numbered 75,000 out of 586,600. In addition, we note that all programs use job search as an integral part of their programs and have added this information to the report. We also found, however, that while job search plays a role in all programs, its use varies considerably. Only about one-third of programs employ an early job search strategy that encourages participants to look for work upon enrollment in JOBS, in effect letting the local labor market decide who is job-ready and employable. Those who fail to find work initially are then placed in job search again after participating in education and training. On the other hand, most programs do not expect all participants to look for work upon enrollment, instead limiting job-search activities until participants have received the education and training that the program determines they need to become employed. We also note that the programs we highlighted for their strong job-placement efforts took steps beyond enrolling participants in job-search activities. These programs facilitate job-search activities by working closely with employers, through job-development efforts, to help participants find work. In addition, it is important that programs encourage their participants to accept employment by, for example, helping all participants understand the work incentives available to them. We found, however, that most programs did not strongly emphasize job-development efforts or inform all participants of important work incentives. In addition, ACF believes that we did not adequately recognize the extent of programs’ connections with employers through their job development efforts. Our data show and the report acknowledges that almost all JOBS programs include some job-development activities, performed either by a program’s own staff or through other organizations. We also found, though, that the extent of job development performed on behalf of JOBS participants, whether by the welfare agency itself or other organizations, is limited. For example, about 60 percent of program administrators reported that their program or its contractors arranged interviews for or marketed to employers only some or few of their job-ready participants. In addition, over one-half of the nation’s program administrators believe that their program or its contractors did not do enough job development to meet their participants’ needs. ACF also noted that JOBS programs can take many approaches to help their participants become employed. In addition, ACF stated that the relatively low use of subsidized employment and work experience does not necessarily indicate a lack of employment focus. We agree that there are many ways that programs can focus on employment, as we demonstrated with the examples of different approaches in chapter 2. We also agree that programs do not have to use subsidized employment or work experience to be considered employment-focused. The Riverside County program, for example, does not emphasize these options. However, we found that most programs reported placement rates for their job-ready participants of 50 percent or less. Yet programs were not widely using existing subsidized employment or work-experience options to foster work among the many participants unable or unwilling to find work. In addition to these issues, ACF expressed concern that our draft report promoted holding states accountable for the employment outcomes of their JOBS programs without noting the problems involved in such an approach. We acknowledge the challenges inherent in holding JOBS programs accountable for results. We maintain, however, that strong congressional interest in AFDC becoming more focused on helping recipients become employed, as well as requirements in the Government Performance Results Act that performance monitoring become more outcome-oriented governmentwide, indicate that more attention to outcome measures and goals is appropriate. ACF also suggested certain technical revisions to the draft, which we incorporated as appropriate.

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on employment-focused welfare-to-work programs, focusing on: (1) the extent to which county and local Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) programs focus on employment; and (2) factors that hinder administrators' efforts to move Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) recipients into jobs. GAO found that: (1) some welfare-to-work programs stress employment and work closely with employers in promoting work among welfare recipients; (2) although the programs reviewed keep participants focused on the importance of work and help program participants find jobs or work-experience positions, they vary in their approach; (3) many county JOBS programs do not have a strong employment focus and many county administrators do not work with employers to find jobs for participants or use work-experience programs; (4) many local program administrators believe that insufficient staffing and resources hinder their work with employers and more flexibility in federal rules governing work-experience programs would facilitate their use; (5) the low-wage work available to many AFDC recipients discourages their movement into the work force; and (6) AFDC programs may emphasize preparing participants for employment without also making strong efforts to help them get jobs, since states are not required to track the number of AFDC recipients who get jobs or earn their way off AFDC.

The size and nature of the Medicare program make HCFA unique in authority and responsibility among health care payers. Fee-for-service Medicare serves about 33 million beneficiaries and processes a high volume of claims—an estimated 900 million in fiscal year 1997—from hundreds of thousands of providers, such as physicians, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, home health agencies, and medical equipment suppliers. HCFA is also responsible for paying and monitoring more than 400 managed care health plans that serve more than 5 million beneficiaries. Enrollment in these plans has been growing by about 85,000 beneficiaries monthly. The Medicare statute divides benefits into two parts: (1) “hospital insurance,” or part A, which covers inpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, hospice, and certain home health care services, and (2) “supplementary medical insurance,” or part B, which covers physician and outpatient hospital services, diagnostic tests, and ambulance and other medical services and supplies. In fiscal year 1997, part A covered an estimated 39 million aged and disabled beneficiaries, while a slightly smaller number were covered by part B, which requires payment of a monthly premium. currently consists mostly of risk contract health maintenance organizations (HMO). Medicare pays these HMOs a monthly amount, fixed in advance, for all the services provided to each beneficiary enrolled. HCFA, an agency within HHS, has slightly less than 4,000 full-time employees, 65 percent of whom work in the agency’s headquarters offices; the rest work in the agency’s 10 regional offices across the country. In addition to the agency’s workforce, HCFA oversees more than 60 claims processing contractors that are insurance companies—like Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, Mutual of Omaha, and CIGNA. In fiscal year 1997, the contractors employed an estimated 22,200 people to perform Medicare claims processing and review functions. Two recent acts grant HCFA substantial authority and responsibility to reform Medicare. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), P.L. 104-191, provides the opportunity to enhance Medicare’s anti-fraud-and-abuse activities. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), P.L. 105-33, introduces new health plan options and major payment reforms. In correspondence to this Subcommittee last October, we noted that these two pieces of legislation addressed in large measure our concerns and those of the HHS Inspector General regarding the tools needed to combat fraud and abuse. They also address many of the weaknesses discussed in our High-Risk Series report on Medicare. network to perform payment safeguard functions while avoiding conflicts of interest. HIPAA also adds new civil and criminal penalties to heretofore little-used enforcement powers. BBA provides for a dramatic expansion of health plan choices available to Medicare beneficiaries and makes reforms to payment methods in traditional fee-for-service Medicare and managed care. Under the act’s new Medicare+Choice program, beneficiaries will have new health plan options, including preferred provider organizations (PPO), provider sponsored organizations (PSO), and private fee-for-service plans. Medicare+Choice introduces new consumer information and protection provisions, including a requirement to disseminate comparative information on Medicare+Choice plans in beneficiaries’ communities and a requirement that all Medicare+Choice plans obtain external review from an independent quality assurance organization. These provisions address problems we have worked to correct with this committee and others in the Congress. BBA also provided for revamping many of Medicare’s decades-old payment systems to contain the unbridled growth in certain program components. Specifically, the act mandated prospective payment systems for services provided by about 1,100 inpatient rehabilitation facilities, 14,000 skilled nursing facilities, 5,000 hospital outpatient departments, and 8,900 home health agencies. In addition, it made changes to the payment methods for hospitals, including payments for direct and indirect medical education costs. It also adjusted fee schedule payments for physicians and durable medical equipment and authorized the conversion of the remaining reasonable charge payment systems to fee schedules. Finally, the act granted the authority to conduct demonstrations on the cost-effectiveness of purchasing items and services through competitive bids from suppliers and providers. While legislative reforms are dramatically reshaping Medicare, other changes are occurring, thus compounding difficult management challenges. For example, HCFA is rethinking its strategy to develop, modernize, or otherwise improve the agency’s multiple automated claims processing and other information systems. This will involve preparing systems for the year 2000, repairing the deteriorating managed care enrollment systems, and making the necessary modifications to existing systems. HCFA plans to make these changes as an interim measure until, consistent with the Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-106), comprehensive reengineering can take place, such as making claims processing systems and payment mechanisms more efficient, programming BBA payment changes, and modernizing the anti-fraud-and-abuse system software. HCFA is also confronting transition problems resulting from the recent loss of large-volume claims processing contractors and the need for remaining contractors to absorb the workload. Finally, HCFA recently restructured its organizational units to better focus on its mission and is experiencing the kind of disruptions common to organizational transitions. Against this backdrop, the themes that emerged from our individual interviews and focus groups with HCFA managers centered on (1) distribution of agency resources, (2) need for specialized expertise, (3) loss of institutional experience, and (4) reorganization issues. “Robbing Peter to pay Paul” was the expression used to characterize one of the major themes from our focus groups. Specifically, managers were concerned that because of the concentrated efforts to implement BBA and solve computer problems that could arise in the year 2000, the quality of other work might be compromised or tasks might be neglected altogether. However, managers also noted that whereas some BBA-related tasks are completely new—such as conducting an open enrollment period for Medicare+Choice plans—and therefore add to the workload, others merely formalize work that was already underway but impose deadlines for completion, such as developing prospective payment methods for reimbursing several types of health care providers. staff members dedicated to contractor oversight currently has two; the others, they said, had been reassigned to work on managed care issues. This concerns us in light of our work on Medicare program management. Over the past several years, we have reported that HCFA has not adequately ensured that contractors are paying only medically necessary or otherwise appropriate claims. Similarly, the HHS Inspector General’s fiscal year 1996 financial audit found contractor oversight weaknesses. For example, some contractors selected for audit could not readily verify total Medicare expenditures, including paid claim amounts, to ensure that amounts were accurate, supported, and properly classified; did not adequately document accounts receivable; and did not have adequate internal controls over the receipt and disbursement of cash. Further, HCFA does not have a method for estimating the amount of improper Medicare payments; for fiscal year 1996, the Inspector General estimated that HCFA made about $23 billion in inappropriate payments. Managers also expressed a common concern about the staff’s mix and level of skills. They noted that HCFA’s traditional approach of hiring generalist staff and training them largely on the job is no longer well suited to the agency’s need to implement recent reforms expeditiously. Instead, managers are beginning to identify the need for staff with specialized technical expertise, such as computer system analysts, survey statisticians, data analysts, market researchers, information management specialists, managed care experts, and health educators. In our discussions, several managers placed “appropriate skill sets” at the top of their wish lists. As an illustration, the Medicare+Choice program introduces new health plan types and requires the dissemination of information about the plans to beneficiaries in 1998. Called the Medicare+Choice Information Fair, this nationwide educational and publicity campaign will be the first effort of its kind for HCFA. Managers were concerned that staff without prior experience will need to pull together information that describes and evaluates the merits of various plans. data systems. They also cited the need for specialists in contracting, facilities management, and telecommunications. Many senior and midlevel managers and experienced technical staff have retired in recent years or are eligible to retire soon. Almost 40 percent of the organization has turned over in the past 5 years. Many were said to have spent their entire careers focused on a particular aspect of the Medicare program. A common concern in our discussions was the erosion of experienced staff to perform a variety of tasks, such as writing regulations and developing payment systems. Managers cited the loss of experienced staff as a problem for developing and implementing the various prospective payment systems mandated by BBA. They also noted that developing one new payment system would have been manageable, but losses of expert staff make it difficult to implement multiple new payment systems concurrently. For example, experienced staff are needed to perform such technical tasks as those we mentioned in our October statement before this Subcommittee, including collecting reliable cost and utilization data to compute the new prospective payment rates, developing case mix adjusters, auditing cost reports to avoid incorporating inflated costs into the base rates, and monitoring to guard against providers’ skimping on services to increase profits. Our focus group participants emphasized that it will be difficult to replace its experienced staff in the short term. Although HCFA is planning to hire new people, the time typically needed for recruiting, hiring, and orienting new employees is considerable. Managers commented that new employees, although highly educated and motivated, sometimes need extensive on-the-job training to replace lost expertise. In July 1997, HCFA restructured its entire organization. The new design reflected the agency’s intent to, among other things, (1) combine activities to redirect additional resources to the growing managed care side of the program, (2) acknowledge a shift from HCFA’s traditional role as claims payer to a more active role as purchaser of health care services, and (3) establish three components focused on beneficiaries, health plans and providers, and Medicaid and other activities conducted at the state level. It also established technical and support offices to assist these components. (See HCFA’s organization chart in app. I.) In announcing the planned reorganization, the Administrator explained that as Medicare has evolved over the years, new programs and projects were layered onto existing structures. Over time, he noted, this became cumbersome and confusing. Many managers we spoke with considered the reorganization to be theoretically sound. Some also told us that it was long overdue, because HCFA’s structure encouraged work on narrow issues within self-contained groups—an approach that did not benefit from the expertise existing across the agency. However, a consensus of focus group participants and high-level officials believed that the timing of the reorganization’s implementation is unfortunate. They explained that they are currently facing full agendas with tight deadlines, which add to the stresses associated with any organizational change. Managers described their difficulties in establishing new communication and coordination links within units as well as across the agency. For some, new efforts to coordinate have proved time-consuming to the point of being counterproductive. Managers commented that sign-off sheets formalizing coordination have enough names to take on the appearance of a staff roster. They noted that the situation was particularly acute in light of the fact that people have not yet moved to the actual location of their new units. Managers in one division said staff were scattered in as many as seven places around HCFA’s building. HCFA now hopes to have staff relocated by late spring, although this plan appears to be optimistic. We observed that managers appeared to be clear on top management’s expectations for completing BBA-related activities and for making sure that contractors’ claims processing systems would comply with the millennium changes. They were less certain, however, about the agency’s strategy for meeting other mission-related work. of its workload that would enable the agency’s senior decisionmakers to consider whether resources are, in fact, adequate or properly distributed and which activities could be at risk of being neglected. One example that came to our attention concerned the legislative mandates for reporting to the Congress on specific activities and programs. Currently, neither top management nor the Office of Legislation compiles a list of reports due and their deadlines. Unit managers are concerned because, although they are aware that certain reports for which they are responsible will be late, there is no systematic way to keep top management informed. Top management, in turn, cannot decide to heighten the priority for a particular report or develop a strategy to mitigate the consequences of others being late. The illustration above and our discussions with agency officials suggest that while HCFA may be ready to assert its BBA-related resource needs, it is not likely to be in a position to adequately justify the resources it seeks to carry out its other Medicare program objectives. This observation calls to mind our July 1997 report on the adequacy of HHS’s draft strategic plan under the Government Performance and Results Act. We noted that the plan failed to address certain major management challenges, including Medicare-related problems. Specifically, the plan did not address long-standing concerns about Medicare’s existing claims processing systems or HCFA’s efforts to acquire a billion-dollar integrated database system. In addition, it did not address the issue of information security that was identified in the fiscal year 1996 financial statement audit of HCFA, specifying that systems weaknesses created the risk of unauthorized access to sensitive medical history and claims data. HCFA is an agency facing many challenges. Even before BBA made major changes, Medicare was a vast and complex program. Volumes of reports by us and others demonstrate, in numerous areas, HCFA’s need to address program vulnerabilities. Because of the risks associated with a program of Medicare’s magnitude, the need for HCFA to be vigilant cannot be overstated. struggling to carry out Medicare’s numerous and challenging activities. In addition, they assert that the loss of experienced staff has further diminished HCFA’s capacity. Nevertheless, senior managers do not appear to be adequately informed about the status of the full range of Medicare activities or associated resource needs. Under these circumstances, HCFA seems to be focusing most of its energy on important deadlines and pressures, but other critical functions may be receiving back-burner attention. We have work underway to assess the status of HCFA’s efforts to implement aspects of HIPAA and BBA and modernize the agency’s information systems. We will also continue to monitor the progress of HCFA’s reorganization efforts. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer your questions. Medicare: Effective Implementation of New Legislation Is Key to Reducing Fraud and Abuse (GAO/HEHS-98-59R, Dec. 3, 1997). Medicare Fraud and Abuse: Summary and Analysis of Reforms in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (GAO/HEHS-98-18R, Oct. 9, 1997) and related testimony entitled Recent Legislation to Minimize Fraud and Abuse Requires Effective Implementation (GAO/T-HEHS-98-9, Oct. 9, 1997). Medicare Automated Systems: Weaknesses in Managing Information Technology Hinder Fight Against Fraud and Abuse (GAO/T-AIMD-97-176, Sept. 29, 1997). Medicare Home Health Agencies: Certification Process Is Ineffective in Excluding Problem Agencies (GAO/T-HEHS-97-180, July 28, 1997). Medicare: Need to Hold Home Health Agencies More Accountable for Inappropriate Billings (GAO/HEHS-97-108, June 13, 1997). Medicare Managed Care: HMO Rates, Other Factors Create Uneven Availability of Benefits (GAO/HEHS-97-133, May 19, 1997). Medicare (GAO/HR-97-10) and related testimony entitled Medicare: Inherent Program Risks and Management Challenges Require Continued Federal Attention (GAO/T-HEHS-97-89, Mar. 4, 1997). Medicare: HCFA Should Release Data to Aid Consumers, Prompt Better HMO Performance (GAO/HEHS-97-23, Oct. 22, 1996). Medicare: Millions Can Be Saved by Screening Claims for Overused Services (GAO/HEHS-96-49, Jan. 30, 1996). Medicare: Excessive Payments for Medical Supplies Continue Despite Improvements (GAO/HEHS-95-171, Aug. 8, 1995). Medicare: Increased HMO Oversight Could Improve Quality and Access to Care (GAO/HEHS-95-155, Aug. 3, 1995). Medicare: Inadequate Review of Claims Payments Limits Ability to Control Spending (GAO/HEHS-94-42, Apr. 28, 1994). 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 the Health Care Financing Administration's (HCFA) ability to meet growing program management challenges, focusing on: (1) HCFA's new authorities under recent Medicare legislation; (2) HCFA managers' views on the agency's capacity to carry out various Medicare-related functions; and (3) the actions HCFA needs to take to accomplish its objectives over the next several years. GAO noted that: (1) substantial program growth and greater responsibilities appear to be outstripping HCFA's capacity to manage its existing workload; (2) legislative reforms have increased HCFA's authority to manage the Medicare program; (3) simultaneously, however, other factors have increased the challenges HCFA faces, including the need to make year 2000 computer adjustments and develop a new, comprehensive information management strategy; manage transitions in its network of claims processing contractors; and implement a major agency reorganization; (4) in addition, officials report that the expertise to carry out HCFA's new functions is not yet in place and that HCFA has experienced a loss of institutional knowledge through attrition; (5) in this environment, agency managers are concerned that some of their responsibilities might be compromised or neglected altogether because of higher-priority work; (6) HCFA's approach for dealing with its considerable workload is incomplete; (7) heretofore, the agency lacked an approach--consistent with the requirement of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to develop a strategic plan--that specified the full range of program objectives to be accomplished; (8) HCFA has developed a schedule for responding to recent legislative reforms but is still in the process of detailing the staffing and skill levels required to meet reform implementation deadlines; and (9) while addressing new mandates, the agency also needs to specify how it will continue to carry out its ongoing critical functions.

In September 1997, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority (Authority) awarded a contract to acquire a new FMS. The overall objective of the FMS project is to improve the District’s financial systems through faster, more efficient, and accurate processing providing increased functionality, flexibility, and reduced cost of operations. According to the Chair of the Authority, the new FMS is intended to (1) eliminate the principal problems that exist with the current system and ensure that all financial management guidelines are adhered to, (2) enable managers to more effectively and efficiently monitor and control financial resources, and (3) produce timely, accurate, and reliable information, providing decisionmakers with the basic financial information needed to make more informed decisions. The Authority awarded a contract for the new FMS in September 1997 and committed to an aggressive implementation schedule. The schedule anticipates (1) pilots in five agencies beginning in February 1998, (2) the accounting system to be implemented by October 1998, and (3) District-wide implementation by February 1999. We were asked to review the District’s efforts to acquire a new financial management system. Our objective was to determine whether the District had implemented disciplined software acquisition processes for acquiring its new financial management system. To accomplish this, we applied the Software Engineering Institute’s Software Acquisition Capability Maturity Model (SA-CMM) and its Software Capability Evaluation (SCE) method. SEI’s expertise in, and methods for, software process assessment are recognized and accepted throughout the industry. Our evaluators were all SEI-trained software specialists. SA-CMM ranks organizational maturity according to five levels (see figure 1). Maturity levels 2 through 5 require the verifiable existence and use of certain software acquisition processes, known as key process areas (KPA). According to SEI, an agency that has these acquisition processes in place is in a much better position to successfully acquire software than an organization that does not have these processes in place. We evaluated the District’s software acquisition processes against six of the seven level 2 KPAs (the transition to support KPA was not evaluated because the District does not plan to support FMS in-house) and one level 3 KPA (see table 1). We selected level 2 because it is the minimum level at which any assurance exists that software acquisition processes are mature enough to consistently deliver promised software capabilities on time and within budget. We included one level 3 KPA—acquisition risk management—because it is considered by software experts to be a very important process area. Basic project management processes are established to track performance, cost, and schedule. The necessary process discipline is in place to repeat earlier successes on projects in similar domains. The software acquisiton process is characterized as ad hoc, and occasionally even chaotic. Few processes are defined and success depends on individual effort. The purpose of software acquisition planning is to ensure that reasonable planning for the software acquisition is conducted and that all aspects of the total software acquisition effort are included in these plans at the proper level of detail. The software acquisition planning process, among other things, includes (1) addressing software life-cycle support in acquisition plans, (2) preparing life-cycle software cost estimates, (3) having a written software acquisition policy, (4) measuring and reporting on the status of software acquisition planning activities, and (5) having guidance on software training and experience requirements for project personnel. The FMS project had many strengths in this KPA. The District received pro bono assistance from several companies to help define the acquisition strategy and conduct the activities for software acquisition planning. An acquisition strategy was developed and the acquisition planning team was staffed with personnel with software and systems experience. The team developed a cost estimate and the District management was briefed by the team on a periodic basis. This enabled the District management to be informed on the progress of the acquisition planning and the various activities through the solicitation phase. However, the FMS project also had many weaknesses in this KPA. Weaknesses observed included a lack of policy on acquisition planning and no specific assignment of responsibility for acquisition planning. Furthermore, the FMS project did not always document significant project decisions or update the planning document to reflect these decisions. For example, when the District decided to not pursue a single contract to both acquire FMS and outsource data center operations, the capability assessment (a software acquisition planning document) was not updated to reflect this decision. Decisions should be documented and the planning documents updated to ensure that large acquisitions such as FMS can be effectively managed. Table 2 shows the strengths and weaknesses for the software acquisition planning KPA and the specific findings supporting these ratings. The purpose of solicitation is to prepare a request for proposal that delineates a project’s software-related requirements and select a contractor that can most cost-effectively satisfy these requirements while complying with relevant solicitation laws and regulations. Specific requirements for a solicitation process include, among other things (1) having and following a solicitation plan, (2) assigning responsibility and ensuring sufficient resources for coordinating and conducting solicitation activities, (3) preparing and reviewing cost and schedule estimates for the software products and services being acquired, and (4) periodically measuring solicitation work completed and effort and funds expended, comparing these measures to plans, and reporting the results to management. The FMS project exhibited many process strengths during the solicitation. The District has a policy on solicitation and the FMS project followed this policy. The project had experienced personnel on the source selection team and these personnel briefed the team members on the objectives of the solicitation. However, the District did not measure either time or funds expended to conduct the solicitation. Specifically, no evidence was provided to show that the FMS project tracked personnel hours or costs during the conduct of the solicitation. Addressing this weakness would enable the District to better estimate the resources needed to conduct similar acquisitions in the future. For example, if these data were collected and made available to other projects, such as the tax systems upgrade, the District would be in a better position to understand its own capability to effectively conduct solicitation, to estimate how long such a solicitation was likely to take, and to eliminate problems that may have hampered the FMS solicitation. Table 3 shows the strengths, weaknesses, and observations for the solicitation KPA and the specific findings supporting these ratings. The purpose of requirements development and management is to establish and maintain a common and unambiguous definition of software requirements among the acquisition team, system users, and software development contractor. This KPA involves two subprocesses: (1) developing a baseline set of software-related contractual requirements and (2) managing these requirements and changes to these requirements for the duration of the acquisition. A number of requirements development and management practices are necessary to satisfy this key process area. These include (1) having a written organizational policy for establishing and managing requirements allocated to software, (2) documenting plans for the development and management of requirements, (3) having documented processes for requirements development, including elicitation, analysis, and verification, (4) measuring and reporting on the status of requirements development and management activities to management, (5) appraising the impact on software of system-level requirements changes and (6) having a mechanism to ensure that contractor-delivered work products meet specified requirements. The FMS project has some process strengths in the conduct of requirements development and management. The project team is performing requirements management activities in accordance with its documented plan and software-related contractual requirements have been baselined. In addition, District management periodically reviews the status of requirements development and management activities with the project team. However, in acquiring FMS, the District did not perform many of the requirements development and management practices necessary to satisfy this KPA. For example, the District does not have an organizational policy for establishing and managing software-related requirements, there is no clear assignment of responsibility for requirements development and management and no documented evidence exists to show either resource requirements or resources expended for requirements development activities. Currently, the FMS project has begun to hold “requirements confirmation meetings” with the users to validate the requirements already specified in the FMS contract. Although requirements should be validated, this should have been done prior to releasing the request for proposal to ensure that the proposal accurately reflects the District’s requirements. Changing requirements after contract award may adversely impact project cost, schedule, and/or performance. Table 4 shows the strengths, weaknesses, and observations for the requirements development and management KPA and the specific findings supporting these ratings. The purpose of project management is to manage the activities of the project office and supporting contractors to ensure a timely, efficient, and effective software acquisition. Effective project management requires, among other things, that project teams (1) be organized to accomplish the project’s objective, (2) have a written policy for the management of the software project, (3) document their plans for the activities of the project team, (4) have the authority to alter either the project’s performance, cost, or schedule baseline while maintaining the other two, and (5) periodically brief management on the status of project management activities. The FMS project has many process strengths in project management. For example, a team was assigned responsibility for managing the project and staffed with experienced individuals whose roles and responsibilities were defined. The program management plan was written and a corrective action system to track issues and problems was implemented. However, the District has no written policy for the execution of the software project. As a result, the District has no assurance that FMS or any other software acquisition project it undertakes will be conducted in a disciplined manner. Table 5 shows the strengths, weaknesses, and observations for the project management KPA and the specific findings supporting these ratings. The purpose of contract tracking and oversight is to ensure that (1) the software development contractor performs according to the terms of the contract, (2) needed contract changes are identified, negotiated, and incorporated into the contract, and (3) contractor performance issues are identified early, when they are easier and less costly to address. An effective contract tracking and oversight process, among other things, includes (1) having a written organizational policy for contract tracking and oversight, (2) having a documented plan for contract tracking and oversight, (3) conducting tracking and oversight activities in accordance with the plan, and (4) ensuring that individuals performing contract tracking and oversight are suitably experienced or trained. The FMS project had many strengths in this KPA. The project has a designated project manager, a group is responsible for managing contract tracking and oversight activities, and the team is meeting periodically with the contractor and tracking issues in a corrective action system. However, at the time of our review, there was no contracting specialist supporting the team in the execution of the contract. In addition, the District has no documented policy for contract tracking and oversight activities. Table 6 shows the strengths, weaknesses, and observations for the contract tracking and oversight KPA and the specific findings supporting these ratings. The purpose of evaluation (testing) is to determine that the acquired software products and services satisfy contract requirements prior to acceptance. The evaluation process includes (1) documenting evaluation plans and conducting evaluation activities in accordance with the plan, (2) developing and managing evaluation requirements in conjunction with developing software technical requirements, (3) incorporating evaluation requirements into the solicitation and the resulting contract, (4) tracking contractor performance of evaluation activities for compliance with the contract, (5) ensuring that adequate resources are provided for evaluation activities, and (6) measuring and reporting on the status of evaluation activities to management. The FMS project has some process strengths in this KPA. For example, responsibility for evaluation activities has been designated to the project manager, individuals designated to perform evaluation activities have experience, and members of the evaluation team received briefings on the objectives of the evaluation. However, there is no documented evaluation policy or plan, no evidence that evaluation requirements have been developed, and neither the Authority nor the project manager reviews the status of evaluation activities. Table 7 shows the strengths, weaknesses, and observations for the evaluation KPA and the specific findings supporting these ratings. SEI defines risk as the possibility of suffering a loss. The purpose of acquisition risk management is to formally identify risks as early as possible and adjust the acquisition to mitigate those risks. An effective risk management process, among other things, includes (1) having a written policy on acquisition risk management, (2) developing a software acquisition risk management plan, (3) conducting software risk management activities in accordance with the plan (e.g., identifying risks, taking mitigation actions, and tracking risk mitigation actions to completion), and (4) measuring and reporting on the status of acquisition risk management activities to management. The FMS project had one strength for this KPA. The project has designated responsibility for risk management to the project management team. However, the District is not performing any of the other practices to satisfy this KPA. For example, there is no written policy or plan for acquisition risk management, resource requirements for risk management have not been identified, and at the time of this audit, neither the Authority nor the project manager were reviewing the activities for risk management. Table 8 shows the strengths, weaknesses, and observations for the acquisition risk management KPA and the specific findings supporting these ratings. Leading software acquisition organizations rely on defined and disciplined software acquisition processes to deliver promised software capabilities on time and within budget, first on a project-by-project basis, and later, as the organization’s processes become more mature, consistently across the institution. While the District has many strengths in its acquisition processes for FMS, it also has many weaknesses that, overall, make its processes undisciplined and immature. As a result, the District’s success or failure in acquiring FMS depends largely on specific individuals rather than on well-defined software acquisition management practices. This greatly reduces the probability that the system will consistently perform as intended and be delivered on schedule and within budget. To satisfy the intent of all the software acquisition key process areas and thereby have a reasonable assurance that acquisition efforts are effectively planned, managed, evaluated, and tracked, the District must address the many weaknesses identified in this report. This would entail the District formulating and implementing a written policy for software acquisition planning, requirements development and management, project management, contract tracking and oversight, evaluation, and acquisition risk management. In addition, it is important for the District to track the various activities for each KPA to ensure that they are being performed and that evaluation and risk management activities are being planned and effectively conducted. We recommend that the Chairman of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority direct the District’s Chief Financial Officer to (1) take the following actions for the six KPAs we reviewed to ensure that the current FMS acquisition and implementation is satisfactorily completed and (2) apply these actions to any future software acquisitions. Document decisions and update the planning documents to ensure that large acquisitions such as FMS can be effectively managed. Designate responsibility for software acquisition planning activities. Determine required resources for acquisition planning. Ensure that measurements of software acquisition activities are taken. Ensure that the software acquisition planning documentation is updated as well as make program changes regarding outsourcing of the data center and upgrading the current system versus buying off-the-shelf. Ensure that the software acquisition planning documentation addresses life-cycle support of the software. Develop a written policy for software acquisition planning. Requirements Development and Management: Develop an organizational policy for establishing and managing software-related requirements. Clearly assign responsibility for requirements development and management. Document either resource requirements or resources expended for requirements development activities. Develop the capability to trace between contractual requirements and the contractor’s work products. Develop measurements to determine the status of the requirements development and management activities. Develop a written policy for the execution of the software project. Authorize the project manager to independently alter either the performance, cost, or schedule. Require that measurements be taken to determine the status of project management activities. Contract Tracking and Oversight: Develop written policy for contract tracking and oversight activities for the financial management system project. Support the project team with contracting specialists. Require that the project team review the contractor’s planning documents (for example, the project management plan, software risk management plan, software engineering plan, configuration management plan). Assign someone responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the contract. Take measurements to determine the status of contract tracking and oversight activities. Develop written policy for managing the evaluation of acquired software products and services. Develop a documented evaluation plan. Develop evaluation requirements in conjunction with system requirements. Assess the contractor’s performance for compliance with evaluation requirements. Develop measurements to determine the status of evaluation activities. Ensure that the Authority and the project manager review the status of evaluation activities. Develop written policy for software acquisition risk management. Designate a group to be responsible for coordinating software acquisition risk management activities. Define resource requirements for acquisition risk management. Ensure that individuals designated to perform software acquisition risk management have adequate experience and training. Integrate software acquisition risk management activities into software acquisition planning. Develop a software acquisition risk management plan in accordance with a defined software acquisition process. Develop a documented acquisition risk management plan and conduct risk management as an integral part of the solicitation, project performance management, and contract performance management processes. Track and control software acquisition risk handling actions until the risks are mitigated. Ensure that risk management activities are reviewed by the Authority and the project manager. GAO requested comments on a draft of this report from the Chairman, District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, and the District’s Chief Financial Officer. They provided us with written comments that are reprinted in appendixes I and II. In their comments, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority’s Executive Director and the District of Columbia’s Chief Financial Officer acknowledged that the software acquisition project for the new financial management system was a high risk initiative and that the District’s processes were not sufficiently mature. The District Chief Financial Officer identified initiatives in each of the key process areas. Both cited ongoing corrective actions, which, if properly implemented, will address several of our recommendations. For example, the Chief Financial Officer stated that the District is developing a Risk Management Plan and is evaluating various strategies to identify and manage risks, and that the Chief Technology Officer for the District of Columbia is developing policies and procedures for information resource management which will include software acquisition. However, the District Chief Financial Officer also added that their efforts to date have achieved a sound acquisition state consistent with the intent of the SA-CMM. As discussed in the report, significant improvements would be necessary to achieve the minimally acceptable level of maturity as defined by the Software Engineering Institute’s Software Acquisition Maturity Model to satisfy the intent of all the software acquisition key process areas. Accordingly, the District has not yet achieved a sound acquisition state consistent with the intent of the SA-CMM. If the District is to instill the needed discipline into its systems acquisition processes consistent with the intent of SA-CMM, it will need to effectively implement all of our recommendations. We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Member of your Subcommittee and to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Appropriations, and the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. We are also sending copies to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Chairman of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority, and the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia. Copies will be made available to others upon request. If you have questions or wish to discuss the issues in this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6412. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Richard 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. 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 whether the District of Columbia had implemented disciplined software acquisition processes for its new financial management system (FMS). GAO noted that: (1) while the District has many strengths in its acquisition processes for FMS, it also has many weaknesses; (2) when compared to standards established by the Software Engineering Institute, the District's processes for software acquisitions are not mature; (3) of the six key process areas (KPA) evaluated for the repeatable level, the District fully satisfied only one--solicitation; (4) severe weaknesses were found in other critical key processes, including requirements development and management and evaluation; (5) for example, the District does not have a policy for establishing and managing software-related requirements, does not at present have adequate resources for requirements development, and has not formally designated responsibility for requirements development and management; (6) similarly, the District does not have an effective evaluation process, and is currently unable to objectively determine if the acquired systems will satisfy the contract requirement; (7) finally, the District has not satisfied the one KPA evaluated for the defined level of maturity, acquisition risk management; and (8) the FMS project does not have a risk management plan and does not track project risk.

In responding to an earlier report, DOD indicated that it had a $26-billion inventory shortage that should be considered when analyzing inventory that needs to be on hand. We used this September 1991 shortage as a basis for reviewing the shortage issue. DOD annually summarizes its secondary inventory in its Supply System Inventory Report, which is based on financial inventory and other inventory reports that the military services and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) prepare. DOD uses the report as a management tool to monitor changes in the level of inventory. In the report, DOD identifies an approved acquisition objective inventory, which it defines as items needed to satisfy the wartime and peacetime requirements to equip and sustain U.S. and allied forces in accordance with DOD policies and plans. When the total of on-hand and due-in inventories falls to or below a certain level—called the reorder point—inventory managers place orders for additional inventory. Depending on the item, the reorder point may include requirements for one or more of the following: war reserves that are authorized to be purchased, customer requisitions that have not been filled, a safety level to be on hand in case of minor interruptions in the resupply process or unpredictable fluctuations in demand, items to be issued during the period between when a need to buy an item is identified and when it is received (lead time), items held as insurance against inventory outages, and items to be issued during the repair period for repairable items. Because the reorder point provides for items to be used during the lead time and for a safety level, inventory managers can place orders so that the orders arrive before out-of-stock situations occur. Generally, inventory managers order an amount of inventory called an economic order quantity, which is the quantity of stock that will result in the lowest total costs for ordering and holding inventory. We analyzed DOD’s secondary inventory records and found that on September 30, 1991, DOD’s secondary inventory shortage was $16.4 billion, not the $26 billion DOD cited. Specifically, we found that the Navy computed its portion of the shortage by including (1) about $5 billion of principal items (e.g., ship and aircraft components not considered to be secondary inventory) and (2) $2 billion of items supplied by contractors or managed by other DOD components or petroleum products. Also, DOD’s figure included $2.4 billion of standard price surcharges that increased acquisition costs by adding charges for transportation and inventory losses. Of the $16.4 billion shortage, $6.1 billion was needed to satisfy economic order quantity requirements and $10.3 billion was needed to satisfy reorder point requirements. Because inventory managers do not place orders until the reorder point is reached, items with economic order quantity requirement shortages represent an acceptable and expected condition. Between September 1991 and September 1993, the inventory shortage decreased by about $8.3 billion (51 percent), from $16.4 billion to about $8.1 billion. The major contributor to the reduced shortage was decreased requirements. The reorder point shortage deceased by $5.9 billion, while the economic order quantity shortage decreased by $2.4 billion. Of the $8.1 billion shortfall, $3.3 billion was for aviation parts managed by the Army’s Aviation and Troop Support Command, the Navy’s Aviation Supply Office, and the Air Force’s San Antonio Air Logistics Center and for clothing and textile items managed by DLA’s Defense Personnel Support Center. Officials at these locations attributed the reduced shortage to removing Desert Storm requirements, downsizing the military forces, eliminating DLA war reserve requirements, and decreasing requirements due to reduced levels of operations. The transfer of consumable items to DLA also contributed to reduced shortages in the Navy and the Air Force. Our analyses of inventory records showed that requirements were reduced significantly between September 1991 and September 1993. Reorder point requirements, including war reserves, safety levels, and lead times, decreased by $19.5 billion (34 percent), from $58 billion to $38.5 billion. The decreased requirements allowed inventory to be reduced to lower levels before replenishment orders were placed. We also noted that economic order quantity requirements decreased by $3.3 billion (28 percent), from $11.6 billion to $8.3 billion, which indicated that DOD was buying inventory in smaller quantities. We analyzed about $1.1 billion of reorder point shortages (7,109 items) at four inventory control points and determined that purchases were made or planned for 3,869 items with $578 million of shortages. Our work showed that because of continuing demand, shortages recur. For example, an engine turbine vane had reorder point shortages in both March and September 1993. On March 31, the item had a reorder point shortage of 1,862. The inventory manager purchased 2,309 vanes in April. Because the inventory was subsequently drawn down and requirements increased, a second purchase for 1,920 vanes was made in July and a third purchase of 2,070 vanes in October. The inventory manager for the vane said that the shortages were a normal function of the supply system and resulted in inventory purchases. The inventory manager also said that he had purchased larger quantities of the vane, which resulted in two purchases a year. The Navy is now purchasing smaller quantities about four times a year, resulting in less inventory being held on hand. Inventory managers did not make purchases to satisfy reorder point shortages of $559 million for 3,240 items because (1) requirements for the items were not valid, had changed, or were uncertain; (2) purchases were not necessary for a variety of nonrequirement reasons such as items being returned to the supply system or the availability of substitute items; and (3) responsibility for the items was transferred to other organizations or the items were no longer in the supply system. According to inventory managers, in only a few instances did the items’ low priority for funding result in not purchasing items to satisfy shortages. For 2,107 items with $330 million in shortages, inventory managers did not make purchases because the shortages were based on requirements that were no longer valid, had changed, or were uncertain. Table 1 shows the number of items and shortage values and why purchases were not made. The following are examples of items that were not purchased because of requirement-related reasons. In September 1993, the Army had a reorder point shortage of three aircraft engines used on the SH60 helicopter. The Aviation and Troop Support Command did not buy the engine, valued at $1,284,923, because its requirements included Navy back orders that had been incorrectly requisitioned through the Army. The command canceled the requirements related to the back orders. Decreasing requirements caused 2,000 Navy aviation items with $233 million in shortages in March 1993 to not have shortages the following September. For example, on March 31, 1993, the Aviation Supply Office had a shortage of two power turbine assemblies used on the CH-46E helicopter. Because of lower demands and field activities turning in items for repair, the inventory manager not only did not buy the 2 assemblies but canceled a purchase request for 17 assemblies. The item had a replacement cost of about $135,000 each. In March 1993, the Navy was short eight panel assemblies used on the H-53A helicopter. The Aviation Supply Office did not buy the assemblies because the H-53A helicopter was obsolete and not in service. The panel assembly has not been purchased since 1982 and, if needed, on-hand assemblies can be used. The shortage was valued at $89,948. The San Antonio Air Logistics Center did not buy for a September 1993 shortage of 1,408 speech equipment units, valued at $3,616,649, because of an incorrect additive requirement. The Center also did not buy for a shortage of 54,853 rivets, valued at $50,106, because of incorrect lead time data in the file. The speech equipment was used on a variety of aircraft and the rivets were used on the F-100 engine. For 375 items with $176 million in shortages, inventory managers did not make purchases for a variety of reasons not related to requirements. These reasons, including the availability of substitute items in the supply system and increases in on-hand inventory, are summarized in table 2. The following are examples of items for which purchases were not made because of nonrequirement-related reasons. In September 1993, the Army was short aircraft engines for the MH47E special operation aircraft. The shortage of 39 aircraft engines, valued at $50,255,962, was not bought by the Aviation and Troop Support Command. The Command did not buy the engines because the engines are contractor-supported items, and the contractor has the responsibility for repairing and stocking the engines. Because of increasing inventory, 288 Navy aviation items with March 1993 shortages that totaled $20.4 million did not have shortages the following September. For example, in March 1993, a receiver transmitter used on various aircraft had a reorder point shortage for eight valued at $126,244. The inventory manager at the Aviation Supply Office did not expect to buy any receiver transmitters because the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force were turning in large quantities of the transmitters and the demand for it was decreasing. In September 1993, the Air Force was short six fiberglass containers used for shipping the inlet fan on the F100 engine. The shortage was valued at $39,345. The San Antonio Air Logistics Center did not buy for the shortage because the fiberglass container had been replaced by a metal container. The fiberglass containers were discontinued because they had higher damage rates than the metal containers and the repair procedures for the fiberglass containers were not environmentally acceptable. In May 1994, DLA was short 42,992 sweaters valued at $484,286. There are four different sizes of a modacrylic and wool fiber sweater the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy use. The Defense Personnel Support Center filled the shortage with an all wool sweater because the modacrylic fiber was no longer produced by the manufacturer. All of the services agreed to this substitution. For 758 items with $53 million in reorder point shortages, inventory managers did not make purchases because responsibility for managing the items had been transferred to other organizations or the items had been removed from the inventory. For example, in September 1993, the Army was short 25 rotary wing blades used on the UH-1H helicopter. The inventory manager at the Aviation and Troop Support Command was not buying the 25 blades because responsibility for the blades was being transferred to the Army National Guard and the Command planned to remove the item from its inventory. The shortage was valued at $2,099,162. At the Aviation Supply Office, 740 items with March 1993 shortages of $43.3 million were no longer on the office’s records in September 1993. We found that some of these items became obsolete and were removed from the system or responsibility for the items was transferred to other organizations such as the Navy’s Ships Parts Control Center or DLA, as the following examples show. The office was short six turbine exhaust ducts in March 1993. The ducts, which cost about $147,000 each, were used on the Harrier aircraft. According to the inventory manager, the item was obsolete and had been replaced by a new item. The inventory manager said that five ducts due in on a contract would be modified to satisfy requirements for the new item. The office was short 66 sleeve bushings in March 1993. In May 1993, the office transferred responsibility for the item to DLA. The bushings, used on a landing gear valve assembly, had a $825 shortage. In March 1993, the Navy was short one exhaust nozzle augmenter (an afterburner) used on the GE F110 engine on the F14 aircraft. The office did not buy for the shortage valued at $256,278 because the afterburner had been replaced by a new afterburner. In September 1993, the Air Force had a reorder point shortage of electrical wire used on the C5 aircraft. The San Antonio Air Logistics Center did not buy the wire because management of the wire was transferred to DLA. The shortage was valued at $17,260. Trends in the private sector are to hold less inventory. An intensely competitive business environment has forced private sector firms to cut costs by reducing and holding less inventory. DOD also recognizes the need to hold smaller inventories. For example, DOD’s September 1993 secondary inventory was $77.5 billion, which represented a $10.6-billion reduction from the $88.1 billion September 1991 inventory. DOD’s 1994 logistics strategic plan calls for continued efforts to reduce inventory levels and sets a goal to reduce the value of inventory held to $56 billion by October 2001. DOD’s current inventory reporting categories, however, do not focus on the amount of inventory that is needed to be on hand. In the September 1993 Supply System Inventory Report, DOD reported $55.4 billion (about 72 percent) of its $77.5 billion inventory as active inventory satisfying approved acquisition objective requirements. DOD defines active inventory as items expected to be consumed within 2 years or that have been purchased to meet specific war reserve needs. In its 1993 materiel management regulation, DOD defined its inventory requisitioning objective—equivalent to an item’s reorder point plus economic order quantity requirements—as the “maximum quantity of materiel to be maintained on-hand or on-order to sustain current operations and core war reserves.” Based on our analysis of inventory reported in DOD’s September 1993 Supply System Inventory Report and other inventory reports, we estimate that $28.8 billion of DOD’s $58.8 billion wholesale inventory was needed to satisfy reorder point and economic order quantity requirements. To provide the Congress and DOD management with better oversight of DOD’s inventory, we recommend that you direct the Supply System Inventory Report be revised. Specifically, the inventory report should identify (1) inventory that is needed to be on hand or on order to satisfy reorder point and economic order quantity requirements and (2) reasons for holding inventory beyond that amount. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our findings but disagreed with our recommendation. DOD said that our recommendation would create a second definition of “required” inventory for reporting that would be different than the one DOD uses for budgeting purposes. DOD said that the recommended criterion for required inventory would include only those stocks in use as of the day of the inventory report and that the criterion is unreasonably restrictive and impractical. Contrary to DOD’s comment, we do not believe that our recommended reporting approach is too restrictive. DOD regulation 4140.1R specifically excludes items in the hands of end users, such as troop units, from reporting, and our recommendation would not change that. In addition to funded war reserves, on-hand inventory that satisfies reorder point and economic order quantity requirements provides for about 1-1/2 years of supply. Inventory beyond the 1-1/2 years of supply is not necessary to be on hand because, if needed, it can be ordered and received in that time. DOD’s comments are presented in their entirety in appendix I. We obtained information on DOD’s secondary item inventory from the Office of the Secretary of Defense; the Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; DLA; and several field locations. We interviewed officials responsible for inventory management policies and reviewed applicable policies, procedures, and related documents. We analyzed September 30, 1991, and September 30, 1993, military service and DLA secondary inventory stratification reports to determine if the shortage was valid. We then visited the Navy’s Aviation Supply Office, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; the Army’s Aviation and Troop Support Command, St. Louis, Missouri; the Air Force’s San Antonio Air Logistics Center, San Antonio, Texas; and DLA’s Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. We visited these inventory control points to review their inventory shortages, which accounted for 62 percent of the $8.1-billion shortage as of September 30, 1993. At these locations, we analyzed about $1.1 billion (7,109 items) of reorder point shortages to determine if the shortages were valid and what actions were being taken to correct the shortages. We requested inventory stratification tapes or similar information from the four inventory control points. For the Army and the Air Force, the tapes were as of September 30, 1993. For the Navy, the tape was as of March 31, 1993. For DLA, we obtained similar information contained in supply control studies for May 8, 1994. (The difference in the dates was related to the availability of the data when the fieldwork started at the selected centers.) Using this information, we judgmentally sampled items with shortages of on-hand and due-in inventory at the four centers and obtained information on what was done about the shortages. We did not validate the inventory requirements that DOD reported. We also did not analyze such items as petroleum, oil, and lubricants; Marine Corps inventories; and retail-level inventories because they represented a small part of DOD’s overall inventory or because reorder point and economic order quantity requirements were not available for them. By removing surcharges covering the costs to operate the supply system, we revalued the inventory at the latest acquisition cost. We did not, however, revalue items needing repair to reflect their repair costs. We conducted our work between July 1993 and April 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As you know, the head of a federal agency is required by 31 U.S.C. 720 to submit a written statement on actions taken on our recommendations to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs not later than 60 days after the date of this report. A written statement must also be submitted 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 the report. Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. Active inventory is materiel expected to be consumed within the budget year (2 years) and purchased to meet specific war reserve requirements. This is the quantity of an item needed to satisfy peacetime and wartime requirements to equip and sustain U.S. and allied forces in accordance with current Department of Defense (DOD) policies and plans. The order quantity that results in the lowest cost to order and hold inventory. Lead time is the time from when a decision to buy an item is made to when the material is received into the system. Principal items are end items and replacement assemblies of such importance that management techniques require centralized individual item management throughout the supply system. This includes central inventory control, centralized computation of requirements, central direction of distribution, and central knowledge and control of all assets owned by the military services. Principal items normally are selected for their essentiality for combat or training, high monetary value, difficulty of procurement or production, or criticality of basic materials or components. The reorder point is a warning point that indicates that a order must be placed to ensure that inventory will be available to satisfy future customer demands. The reorder point consists of the sum of the safety level, the ordering and shipping time, the repair cycle level, and the authorized additive levels. The requisitioning objective is the maximum quantity of materiel to be maintained on-hand and on-order to sustain current operations and core war reserves. It consists of the sum of stocks represented by the operating level, safety level, repair cycle, and the order and shipping time. This objective is equivalent to an item’s reorder point plus economic order quantity requirements. Safety level is the quantity of materiel required to be on hand to permit continued operation in case of a minor interruption of normal replenishment or a fluctuation in demand occurs. A secondary item is an item that is either a consumable (item that can be used only once because it cannot be repaired) or reparable (item that can be repaired and put back into service) other than a principal item. Secondary items include spare and repair parts, fuel, construction materials, clothing and textiles, and medical and dental supplies. 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 inventory shortages in the Department of Defense's (DOD) secondary, nonweapon inventory, focusing on: (1) the size of the shortages; (2) inventory managers' actions in response to the shortages; (3) whether funding problems caused managers not to buy needed items; and (4) the need for revising DOD inventory reporting. GAO found that: (1) the September 1991 DOD secondary inventory shortage was $16.4 billion instead of the $26 billion DOD reported because DOD included some Navy nonsecondary inventory items and standard price surcharges for transportation and inventory losses that increased DOD acquisition costs; (2) between September 1991 and September 1993, the shortage decreased to $8.1 billion due to the removal of Desert Storm requirements, military downsizing, elimination of some war reserve requirements, and reduced levels of operations; (3) reorder point shortages were a normal part of the supply system because of continuing demand, but these shortages were rarely due to a lack of funding; (4) inventory managers decided not to order almost one-half of $1.1 billion in reorder point shortages because of invalid requirements, the availability of substitute items, the transfer to other units of certain items, and items being removed from the inventory; (5) in general, these procurement decisions were valid and probably saved millions of dollars, since the items probably would not have been used; and (6) DOD inventory reporting is not based on the amount of inventory needed to be on hand, but rather on reorder points and economic order quantity which can result in excessive inventory.

Early childhood is a key period of development in a child’s life and an emphasized age group for which services are likely to have long-term benefits. Recent research has underscored the need to focus on this period to improve children’s intellectual development, language development, and school readiness. Early childhood programs serve children from infancy through age 5. The range of services includes education and child development, child care, referral for health care or social services, and speech or hearing assessment as well as many other kinds of services or activities. $4 billion), administered by HHS, and Special Education programs (approximately $1 billion), administered by Education. Head Start provides education and developmental services to young children, and the Special Education-Preschool Grants and Infants and Families program provides preschool education and services to young children with disabilities. Although these programs target different populations, use different eligibility criteria, and provide a different mix of services to children and families, there are many similarities in the services they provide. Figure 1 illustrates the federal agencies responsible for federal early childhood funding. Early childhood programs were included in the list of more than 30 programs our governmentwide performance and accountability report cited to illustrate the problem of fragmentation and program overlap.Virtually all the results that the government strives to achieve require the concerted and coordinated efforts of two or more agencies. However, mission fragmentation and program overlap are widespread, and programs are not always well coordinated. This wastes scarce funds, frustrates taxpayers, and limits overall program effectiveness. The Results Act is intended to improve the management of federal programs by shifting the focus of decision-making and accountability from the number of grants and inspection made to the results of federal programs. The act requires executive agencies, in consultation with the Congress and other stakeholders, to prepare strategic plans that include mission statements and goals. Each strategic plan covers a period of at least 5 years forward from the fiscal year in which the plan is submitted. It must include the following six key elements: a comprehensive mission statement covering the major functions and operations of the agency, a description of general goals and objectives for the major functions and operations of the agency, a discussion of how these goals and objectives will be achieved and the resources that will be needed, a description of the relationship between performance goals in the annual performance plan and general goals and objectives in the strategic plan, a discussion of key factors external to the agency that could affect significantly the achievement of the general goals and objectives, and a description of program evaluations used to develop the plan and a schedule for future evaluations. describe the means the agency will use to verify and validate its performance data. The act also requires that each agency report annually on the extent to which it is meeting its annual performance goals and the actions needed to achieve or modify goals that have not been met. The first report, due by March 31, 2000, will describe the agencies’ fiscal year 1999 performance. The Results Act provides a valuable tool to address mission fragmentation and program overlap. The act’s emphasis on results implies that federal programs contributing to the same or similar outcomes are expected to be closely coordinated, consolidated, or streamlined, as appropriate, to ensure that goals are consistent and that program efforts are mutually reinforcing. As noted in OMB guidance and in our recent reports on the act, agencies should identify multiple programs within or outside the agency that contribute to the same or similar goals and describe their efforts to coordinate. Just as importantly, the Results Act’s requirement that agencies define their mission and desired outcomes, measure performance, and use performance information provides multiple opportunities for the Congress to intervene in ways that could address mission fragmentation. As missions and desired outcomes are determined, instances of fragmentation and overlap can be identified and appropriate responses can be defined. For example, by emphasizing the intended outcomes of related federal programs, the plans might allow identification of legislative changes needed to clarify congressional intent and expectations or to address changing conditions. As performance measures are developed, the extent to which agency goals are complementary and the need for common performance measures to allow for crossagency evaluations can be considered. For example, common measures of outcomes from job training programs could permit comparisons of programs’ results and the tools used to achieve those results. As continued budget pressures prompt decisionmakers to weigh trade-offs inherent in resource allocation and restructuring decisions, the Results Act can provide the framework to integrate and compare the performance of related programs to better inform choices among competing budgetary claims. The outcome of using the Results Act in these ways might be consolidation that would reduce the number of multiple programs, but it might also be a streamlining of program delivery or improved coordination among existing programs. Where multiple programs remain, coordination and streamlining would be especially important. Multiple programs might be appropriate because a certain amount of redundancy in providing services and targeting recipients is understandable and can be beneficial if it occurs by design as part of a management strategy. Such a strategy might be chosen, for example, because it fosters competition, provides better service delivery to customer groups, or provides emergency backup. Education and HHS’s ACF—the two agencies that are responsible for the majority of early childhood program funds—addressed early childhood programs in their strategic and 1999 performance plans. Although both agencies’ plans generally addressed the required elements for strategic and performance plans, Education’s plans provided more detailed information about performance measures and coordination strategies. The agencies in their 2000 plans similarly addressed the required elements for performance plans. However, strategies and activities that relate to coordination were not well defined. Although agencies state that some coordination occurs, they have not yet fully described how they will coordinate their efforts. The Education plan provided a more detailed description of coordination strategies and activities for early childhood programs than the ACF plan, including some performance measures that may cut across programs. The ACF plan described in general terms the agency’s plans to coordinate with external and internal programs dealing with early childhood goals. Yet the information presented in the plans did not provide the level of detail, definition, and identification of complementary measures that would facilitate comparisons of early childhood programs. research on early brain development reveals that if some learning experiences are not introduced to children at an early age, the children will find learning more difficult later; children who enter school ready to learn are more likely to achieve high standards than children who are inadequately prepared; and high-quality preschool and child care are integral in preparing children adequately for school. Early childhood issues were discussed in the plan’s goal to “build a solid foundation for learning for all children” and in one objective and two performance indicators (see table 1). The 1999 performance plan, Education’s first performance plan, followed from the strategic plan. It clearly identified programs contributing to Education’s early childhood objective and set individual performance goals for each of its programs. Paralleling the strategic plan, the performance plan specified the core strategies Education intended to use to achieve its early childhood goal and objective. Among these were interagency coordination, particularly with HHS’s Head Start program. According to Education’s strategic plan, this coordination was intended to ensure that children’s needs are met and that the burden on families and schools working with multiple providers is reduced. The performance plan also said that Education would work with HHS and other organizations to incorporate some common indicators of young children’s school readiness into their programs. It would also work with HHS more closely to align indicators of progress and quality between HHS’s Head Start program and its Even Start Family Literacy program—which has as part of its goal the integration of early childhood education, adult literacy or adult basic education, and parenting education. other federal agencies enables it to better serve program participants and reduce inefficiencies in service delivery. We said that although this first plan included a great deal of valuable information, it did not provide sufficient details, such as a more complete picture of intended performance across the department, a fuller portrayal of how its strategies and resources would help achieve the plan’s performance goals, and better identification of significant data limitations and their implications for assessing the achievement of performance goals. These observations apply to the early childhood programs as well. Without this additional detail, policymakers are limited in their ability to make decisions about programs and resource allocation within the department and across agencies. Education’s 2000 performance plan continues to demonstrate the department’s commitment to the coordination of its early childhood programs. Like the 1999 performance plan, the sections on early childhood programs clearly identified programs contributing to its childhood program objectives. It also contained new material highlighting the importance of the coordination of early childhood programs as a crosscutting issue, particularly with HHS. To facilitate collaboration, the department added a strategy to work with the states to encourage interagency agreements at the state level. It also added using the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council to coordinate strategies for children with disabilities and their families. At the same time, the department still needs to better define its objectives and performance measures for crosscutting issues. Unless the purpose of coordination activities is clearly defined and results in measurable outcomes, it will be difficult to make progress in the coordination of programs across agencies. development, safety, and well-being of children and youth”—and three objectives (see table 2). The ACF plan, however, did not always give a clear picture of intended performance of its programs and often failed to identify the strategies the agency would use to achieve its performance goals. ACF programs that contribute to each early childhood objective were identified, and several of these programs had individual performance goals. However, without a clear picture of intended program goals and performance measures for crosscutting early childhood programs, it will be difficult to compare programs across agencies and assess the federal government’s overall efficacy in fostering early childhood development. and external stakeholders in this area. However, it did not define how this coordination will be accomplished or the means by which the crosscutting results will be measured. Agency officials are able to describe numerous activities that demonstrate collaboration within the agency and with Education. The absence of that discussion in the plan, however, limits the value the Results Act could have to both improving agency management and assisting the Congress in its oversight role. Progress in coordinating crosscutting programs is still in its infancy, although agencies are recognizing its importance. Agency performance plans provide the building blocks for recognizing crosscutting efforts. Because of the iterative nature of performance-based management, however, more than one cycle of performance plans will probably be required in the difficult process of resolving program fragmentation and overlap. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We would be happy to answer any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have. Government Management: Addressing High Risks and Improving Performance and Accountability (GAO/T-OCG-99-23, Feb. 10, 1999). Head Start: Challenges Faced in Demonstrating Program Results and Responding to Societal Changes (GAO/T-HEHS-98-183, June 9, 1998). The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Education’s Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan (GAO/HEHS-98-172R, June 8, 1998). The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.20, Apr. 1, 1998). Managing for Results: Observations on Agencies’ Strategic Plans (GAO/T-GGD-98-66, Feb. 12, 1998). Managing for Results: Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Can Help Address Strategic Planning Challenges (GAO/GGD-98-44, Jan. 30, 1998). Child Care: Federal Funding for Fiscal Year 1997 (GAO/HEHS-98-70R, Jan. 23, 1998). Federal Education Funding: Multiple Programs and Lack of Data Raise Efficiency and Effectiveness Concerns (GAO/T-HEHS-98-46, Nov. 6, 1997). At-Risk and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Programs Lack Coordinated Federal Effort (GAO/T-HEHS-98-38, Nov. 5, 1997). Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/AIMD-97-146, Aug. 29, 1997). The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Education’s June 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (GAO/HEHS-97-176R, July 18, 1997). The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997). Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS, Oct. 31, 1994). 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 how Congress can use the Government Performance and Results Act to facilitate agency performance plans to oversee early childhood programs, focusing on: (1) how the Results Act can assist in management and congressional oversight, especially in areas where there are multiple programs; (2) how the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (HHS)--which together administer more than half of the federal early childhood program funds--addressed early childhood programs in their strategic and fiscal year 1999 and 2000 performance plans and the extent to which recent plans show progress in coordinating early childhood programs. GAO noted that: (1) Congress can use the Results Act to improve its oversight of crosscutting issues because the act requires agencies to develop strategic and annual performance plans that clearly specify goals, objectives, and measures for their programs; (2) the Office of Management and Budget has issued guidance saying that for crosscutting issues, agencies should describe efforts to coordinate federal programs contributing to the same or similar outcomes so that goals are consistent and program efforts are mutually reinforcing; (3) when GAO looked at the Education and HHS plans, it found that the plans are not living up to their potential as expected from the Results Act; (4) more specifically, while the fiscal year 1999 and 2000 plans to some extent addressed coordination, the departments have not yet described in detail how they will coordinate or consolidate their efforts; and (5) therefore, the potential for addressing fragmentation and duplication has not been realized, and GAO cannot assess whether the agencies are effectively working together on crosscutting issues.

Remarkable new archaeological discoveries are beginning to suggest that Stonehenge was built at a time of particularly intense religious and political rivalry. Just two miles north-east of the World Heritage site, at an important archaeological complex known as Durrington Walls, archaeologists have just discovered what appears to have been a vast 500-metre diameter circle of giant timber posts. The find is of international significance. Durrington Walls excavation Originally archaeologists, using geophysics rather than excavation, had thought that they had found buried standing stones, so the discovery has totally changed their understanding of the site – the largest ancient monument of its type in Britain. However, the most significant revelation is the discovery that the newly identified timber circle complex was probably never fully completed – and that, just a few months or years after construction had started, there was a dramatic change in religious – and therefore almost certainly also political – direction. Work on the circle was stopped abruptly by around 2460BC – despite the fact that it was nearing completion. The 200-300 giant 6-7 metre long, 60-70 centimetre diameter timber posts were lifted vertically out of their 1.5 metre deep post holes – and were probably used to construct or expand other parts of the complex. Discoveries that change the way you see the world 30 show all Discoveries that change the way you see the world 1/30 Million-year-old human footprints discovered Million-year-old human footprints have been discovered on the beach as Happisburgh, Norfolk 2/30 The world's oldest face Scientists discovered the world’s oldest face, which belongs to this 419 million-year-old fish - an ancient sea predator that might also re-write the history of our evolution from the seas 3/30 Discovery of the ancient forest Ancient forest revealed by storms. The recent huge storms and gale force winds that have battered the coast of West Wales have stripped away much of the sand from stretches of the beach between Borth and Ynyslas. The disappearing sands have revealed ancients forests, with the remains of oak trees dating back to the Bronze Age, 6,000 years ago. The ancient remains are said by some to be the origins of the legend of ‚Cantre‚r Gwealod‚ , a mythical kingdom now submerged under the waters pif Cardigan Bay 4/30 Bowhead whale genome, linked to cancer resistance, DNA damage repair and increased longevity, mapped by scientists In a UK-based study, scientists working together with scientists in Alaska, Denmark, Ireland, Spain and South Korea successfully mapped the genome of the bowhead whale - the longest-living mammal - identifying a number of genes that are linked to cancer resistance, DNA damage repair and increased longevity PA 5/30 Researchers develop 'imaginary meal' pill An 'imaginary meal' pill called fexaramine has been developed by researchers at the Salk's Gene Expression Laboratory 6/30 Scientists prolong lifespan of flies Scientists at the Institute of Cell Biology, in Switzerland, have successfully managed to prolong the lifespan of flies, activating a gene that destroys unhealthy cell 7/30 Green tea can help cure oral cancer Green tea can help kill off cancerous cells, say researchers 8/30 Mars once had a large ocean covering a large portion of its northern hemisphere Almost half of the northern hemisphere of Mars was once covered by a large ocean that held 20 million cubic kilometres of water: more than the Artic Ocean 9/30 Offices playing natural sounds can boost worker moods and improve cognitive abilities Researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute learned that offices which play natural sounds such as ocean waves, trees and bird calls can boost the moods of workers and improve their cognitive abilities, as well as providing privacy (by masking speech) 10/30 Impact glass may exist on Mars Brown University researchers found that spectral signals indicate the existence of “impact glass” on the surface of Mars, with specific deposits conserved in craters 11/30 Fathers experience weight gain Fathers have been found to experience weight gain and a rise in their body mass index (BMI), according to a research conducted by Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine. The study, which followed over 10,000 men throughout a 20 year period, also revealed that the men who didn’t become fathers actually lost weight 12/30 The world's oldest skull Divers Alberto Nava and Susan Bird discover the world's oldest skull found in an underwater cave in Mexico, believed to be the earliest trace of first Americans 13/30 Scientists create “intelligent” mice that do not experience fear or anxiety Scientists participating in a joint University of Leeds and Mount Sinai Hospital study managed to alter a gene within mice; improving their intelligence and reducing their ability to feel anxious or fear. The discovery could prove instrumental in research into age-related cognitive decline, such as Alzheimer’s or schizophrenia 14/30 Paralysed man walks again The ‘brain-computer interface’ system will be improved by developing an implantable version, say experts. A 26-year-old male who had suffered a spinal cord injury which had paralysed him from the waist down was given the ability to walk again by scientists, who rerouted brain waves to electrodes on his knees.The doctors responsible said that he was the first person with paraplegia caused by a spinal injury given the ability to walk without relying on manually controlled robotic limbs 15/30 Discovery of the medieval royal palaces Archaeologists in southern England have discovered what may be one of the largest medieval royal palaces ever found – buried under the ground inside a vast prehistoric fortress at Old Sarum. The probable 12th century palace was discovered by archaeologists, using geophysical ground-penetrating ‘x-ray’ technology to map a long-vanished medieval city which has lain under grass on the site for more than 700 years 16/30 The world's rarest diamond This rare diamond that survived a trip from deep within the Earth's interior confirmed that there is an ocean’s worth of water beneath the planet’s crust 17/30 Virtual reality can revolutionise healthcare Cardiologists at the Institute of Cardiology in Poland have successfully used virtual reality to restore blood flow to a blocked artery, leading the way for it to revolutionise certain aspects of healthcare, in surgical procedures and during training. Using wearable virtual reality equipment, similar to that of Google Glass, developed specifically for the surgical procedure, doctor completed the difficult procedure 18/30 Puppies born by IVF in the US After years of failed attempts, scientists at Cornell University successfully bred the world's first puppies born through IVF, allowing for research into the conservation of endangered breeds and protection of those that are at risk of disease 19/30 Cancer is caused by environmental factors Research into the causes of cancer concluded that, on the whole, it is due to environmental factors, not, as was previously thought, “bad luck” 20/30 Fossil fight 'Astounding' fossil find from Montana revealing two dinosaurs locked in mortal combat 21/30 Fusion reactors could become economically viable Researchers at Durham University and the Oxfordshire Culham Centre for Fusion Energy have found fusion reactors could become economically viable ways of generating electricity in just a few decades, telling politicians and policy makers to begin the process of planning for their introduction and the replacement of nuclear power stations. Analysis by these researchers has found that the costs associated with fusion power shows its feasibility, when compared with traditional fission reactors, generating electricity at a similar price 22/30 Discovery of the whale skeletons Chilean and Smithsonian paleontologists study several fossil whale skeletons at Cerro Ballena, next to the Pan-American Highway in the Atacama Region of Chile 23/30 Discovery of The Dead Sea Scrolls The Dead Sea Scrolls are almost 1,000 biblical manuscripts discovered in the decade after the Second World War in what is now the West Bank. The texts, mostly written on parchment but also on papyrus and bronze, are the earliest surviving copies of biblical and extra-biblical documents known to be in existence, dating over a 700-year period around the birth of Jesus. The ancient Jewish sect the Essenes is supposed to have authored the scrolls, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, although no conclusive proof has been found to this effect 24/30 Complete mammoth skeleton discovered The first complete mammoth skeleton to be found in France for more than a century was uncovered in a gravel pit on the banks of the Marne, 30 miles north-east of Paris. Picture shows experts at work making a silicon cast of the mammoth's tusk 25/30 Byzantine mosaic discovered Plans for a walkway at the centre of the furious dispute over Jerusalem's holiest site were delayed by the discovery of a Byzantine mosaic 26/30 Neolithic 'lost avenue' - prehistoric stone circle discovered The discovery of a Neolithic 'lost avenue' was described as one of the most important finds of the last century. Since the 1700s, archeologists and historians have argued over the existence of the huge sarsen stones, which were unearthed at the site of the world's biggest prehistoric stone circle at Avebury in Wiltshire 27/30 Ancient gold found near Stonehenge Gold fitting for a dagger sheath (around 1900 BC.) found near Stonehenge 28/30 The Rosetta Stone discovery The Rosetta Stone is a basalt slab inscribed with a decree of pharaoh Ptolemy Epiphanes (205-180 BC) in three languages, Greek, Hieroglyphic and Demotic script. Discovered near Rosetta in Egypt 29/30 We are made from stardust In 1957, a paper was published which said we are all made of stardust. Well, not quite that, but almost. Four scientists of the University of Cambridge, Fred Hoyle, William Fowler and Margaret and Geoffrey Burbidge, had conducted extensive research into stellar nucleosynthesis, the theory that all elements are created in the oldest chemical factories in the universe - stars. This paper, called ‘Synthesis of the Elements in Stars’, but better known as B2FH because of the initials of its authors, was at odds with the theory common at the time that all the elements were synthesised during the Big Bang. B2FH argued that when a star ages and dies it will enrich the interstellar medium with heavier elements, from which new stars - and, presumably, we - are formed 30/30 Optical fibres discovery The internet is a truly incredibly thing, but we all hate it when it works too slowly. That’s where optical fibres come in. Made of a high quality extruded glass called silica, they guide light through a process of refraction, and in doing so are able to transmit bandwidths at a remarkably high speed and over remarkably long distances. As such, they are used in telecommunications and computer networking to speed up internet connections, able to do so due to the fact that the total internal refraction of light means very little data is lost. And the best thing about optical fibres is when at Imperial College London they were first demonstrated to be able to ‘bend’ light by Harold Hopkins and Narinder Kapany, dubbed the ‘founding father of fibre optics’ What’s more, within a few months or years, the post holes themselves were then deliberately filled with blocks of chalk and were covered up for most of the circuit by a bank made of similar chalk rubble. Two of the post holes have just been fully excavated – and, at the bottom of one, the prehistoric people who decommissioned and buried the site, formerly occupied by the giant timber circle, had placed one of their tools (a spade made of a cow’s shoulder blade) at the bottom of the post hole before it was filled in. It certainly hints at the ritual nature of how the change of religious direction was implemented. It was as if the religious "revolutionaries" were trying, quite literally, to bury the past. The question archaeologists will now seek to answer is whether it was the revolutionaries’ own past they were seeking to bury – or whether it was another group or cultural tradition’s past that was being consigned to the dustbin of prehistory. Laser scanning Durrington Walls Durrington Walls excavation The discovery is particularly significant because the change of religious direction occurred at virtually the same time that Stonehenge itself was transformed from a large diameter circle of medium-sized stones to a much tighter smaller diameter circle of truly massive stones (the major ones we see today). It is also around the time that another very major Wiltshire prehistoric religious complex – Avebury – was being expanded through the construction of an impressive 2,500-metre-long avenue of standing stones. The 39-metre-high prehistoric Silbury Hill (near Avebury) – Europe’s largest artificial mound – was also built at around this time. Monkeys have been using tools for 700 years The changes may also be linked – in some direct or indirect way – to the arrival in Britain, at around or immediately after this time, of a new cultural tradition (and probably some new peoples or new elites) – known to prehistorians as the Beaker culture. The changes at Durrington Walls and elsewhere represent a key element of Britain’s story – part of the transition from the Neolithic era to the Bronze Age. Usually it is impossible to glimpse the internal religious and political rivalries and conflicts of our prehistoric past – but the Durrington discoveries are giving the modern world an unprecedented opportunity to begin to understand aspects of the past that are normally hidden from view. Durrington Walls excavation The Durrington Walls excavation has been carried out by a team of archaeologists led by Professor Vince Gaffney of the University of Bradford and Professor Mike Parker Pearson of University College London. The site is open to the public and is owned by the National Trust. “The new discoveries at Durrington Walls reveal the previously unsuspected complexity of events in the area during the period when Stonehenge’s largest stones were being erected – and show just how politically and ideologically dynamic British society was at that particularly crucial stage in prehistory,” said Dr Nick Snashall, the senior National Trust archaeologist for the Stonehenge and Avebury World Heritage Site. ||||| Last year archeologists discovered "Superhenge", or what was thought to be around 90 stone monolithic structures buried a meter below ground, just a few kilometers northeast of the Stonehenge in Wiltshire, England. The blocks were over 4,500 years old. It turns out, however, that the circular Superhenge was actually made of timber, and that it was hurriedly taken down. The research team that made this discovery hypothesize that the Superhenge might have been constructed and deconstructed during a tumultuous time, rife with political or religious conflict. Geophysical survey techniques allowed scientists to first discover Superhenge and conclude that each monolith was organized in a circle with a diameter of about 500 meters. They did not actually, however, excavate the site. Now a recent excavation of the Superhenge site has revealed that the standing monoliths were neither standing, nor stone, nor even monolithic. These structures are actually giant pits that once contained wooden posts. "The response from the radar was so good that the team thought they were dealing with a whole series of stones lying on their side, buried beneath the bank of this ancient earthwork," Nick Snashall, UK National Trust archeologist, told the BBC. So far two of the pits have been excavated, officially disproving the stone theory. "What we've discovered are that there are two enormous pits for timber posts. They have got ramps at the sides to lower posts into," said Snashall. "They did contain timbers which have been vertically lifted out and removed at some stage. The top was then filled in with chalk rubble and then the giant henge bank was raised over the top." It's not clear, however, why the original builders of the Superhenge took out the wooden posts and left the ditch that scientists discovered today. It also seems as if the circle of wooden posts was never actually completed. Instead, when the posts were removed, the ditches were filled with chalk. At the bottom of one of the holes, archeologists also found a spade tool, made from a cow's shoulder blade. The story of the Superhenge is not yet clear, but some theorize that the site reflects Britain's tumult as tribal society shifted from the Neolithic period to the Bronze Age, and the change in religious practice around that time, too.

Remember the huge stone monument archaeologists found buried two miles from Stonehenge in the UK last year? Well it turns out that the so-called "Superhenge" that radar suggested was made of 100 or so large stones was actually stoneless. "The response from the radar was so good that the team thought they were dealing with a whole series of stones lying on their side" at Durrington Walls, archaeologist Nicola Snashall tells the BBC. But when the team finally got down to excavating two of the pits, they instead found "enormous pits for timber posts." The large beams of wood appear to have been removed not long after they were sunk into the post holes some 4,500 years ago, reports Vice. The Independent puts numbers to what it calls Britain's "largest ancient monument of its type," reporting that as many as 300 timbers measuring up to 23 feet long were vertically lifted from the holes making up what was a 1,640-foot-diameter circle. After the wood was removed, "the top was then filled in with chalk rubble and then the giant henge bank was raised over the top," explains Snashall. Researchers are still baffled by what the timber was for and why it was removed before the monument was even finished, but "for some strange reason" it clearly was, says Snashall. (Students recently experimented with moving stones the way people had to thousands of years ago.)

A law enforcement official in Washington said the two men arrested in Massachusetts are Pakistani and are believed to have sent money to Shahzad before he allegedly tried to detonate the car bomb on May 1. "One of the things we are going to be trying to determine" is whether the men knew they were supplying funds for an act of terrorism, Holder said. US Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Washington yesterday that authorities believe there is evidence that the three men arrested had given money to Shahzad. Bharara is leading the investigation into the alleged attempt on May 1 by Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistan-born former financial analyst from Bridgeport, Conn., to ignite a bomb in New York. The arrests in Massachusetts, and another of an unidentified individual in Maine, were part of a series of raids in half a dozen locations in the Northeast, including on Long Island and in New Jersey, according to authorities. Pir and Aftab Khan are distant relatives, a coworker of one of the men said; both were detained on what authorities said were immigration violations. The two men had been under surveillance for an unspecified period as a result of evidence gathered by the office of Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, according to Massachusetts State Police Colonel Marian McGovern. The men arrested were Pir Khan, 43, a taxi driver, and Aftab Khan, a gas station attendant in his 20s, both of whom live in the Waverley Avenue apartment in Watertown that was raided by the federal agents, according to a law enforcement official and several acquaintances. Two Pakistani men who authorities believe sent money to the suspect in this month's attempted car bombing in Times Square were taken into custody Thursday in Greater Boston after investigators searched a house in Watertown and a gas station in Brookline. Gail Marcinkiewicz, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Boston, said the Massachusetts arrests did not "relate to any known immediate threat to the public or any active plot against the United States." Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who had been briefed on the raids beforehand, sought to reassure residents that there was ``no immediate threat to persons or property in Massachusetts.'' ``I know that people are concerned since the attempted bombing in Times Square and for that reason police have stepped up their surveillance and their vigilance in public facilities and in large crowds,'' Patrick said at a State House news conference. The two Massachusetts men were arrested early Thursday morning. One man, believed to be Aftab Khan, was seen being placed into an unmarked car outside a small white house at 39 Waverley Ave. in Watertown shortly after 20 federal agents with guns drawn raided the home around 6 a.m. The taxi driver, believed to be Pir Khan, was arrested around 7:30 a.m. by federal and state authorities, who pulled over the cab he was driving outside the Doubletree Guest Suites on Soldiers Field Road in Allston. Federal agents searched the Watertown house and a Mobil gas station at 198 Harvard St. in Brookline, and interviewed people who knew the men. The Khans were among several Pakistani men who lived on the first floor of the Watertown house. "He’s a good person," said an acquaintance of Pir Khan, who did not want to be identified. She said Pir Khan is married and has lived in the United States for more than a decade but does not have a green card and is apparently here illegally. Pir Khan listed himself as president of Swabi Cab on documents filed with Secretary of State William F. Galvin's office two years ago, but other documents show a different owner. An employee at the 7-Eleven store on Mt. Auburn Street in Watertown said Pir Khan worked the overnight shift at the store for a few weeks about a month or two ago, filling in for one of Khan's roommates, who was vacationing in Pakistan. Naseer Khan of Cambridge, a friend and former roommate of Pir Khan who is not related, said he was shocked to hear that Pir might have been arrested in connection to the attempted bombing. ``No, he is not this kind of person," he said. Naseer Khan said Pir is a taxi driver and has not returned to Pakistan since coming to the US about 15 years ago. Muhammad Hanif, the imam at the Allston Brighton Islamic Center, said that Pir Khan would come to the center on Fridays for prayer services. "He was a quiet person with a good personality. A calm person," Hanif said. "We are very astonished and surprised to hear such news about him." Fida Muhammad, a clerk and gas attendant at the Mobil station on Cypress Street in Brookline, said Aftab Khan worked at that station and the one on Harvard Street. Muhammad said he’s known Aftab Khan for about five months and that he was surprised to learn of his arrest. "He’s a good person," he said. "He came here on a visa, but the visa expired, and he was trying to apply to stay." In the Watertown arrest, neighbor Vincent Lacerra said he was watching television around 6 a.m. when he heard a commotion outside, and looked to see about 20 FBI agents with guns drawn approaching the white house across the street, yelling, ``FBI, don't move, put your hands up!'' "When I looked out the window, I saw tons of men with rifles or guns pointing to the house,'' said his wife, Barbara. ``They were surrounding it.'' Shortly afterward, an agent from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement walked a man in a gray shirt and handcuffs out of the house, placed him in a black unmarked car, and drove off. For much of the rest of the day, FBI crime scene workers were seen leaving the house with brown bags and boxes of potential evidence that they carried to two large trucks. Baij Joshi, who manages the Watertown property for his father, Shubh, said three Pakistani men lived on the first floor of the house and had been there for ``more than two to three years.'' He said some had spoken recently of taking a trip to Pakistan. Joshi said the men always paid their $1,100 rent by check, except for last month, when one of them, whom he identified as Pir Khan, paid with cash. Joshi said one of the men drove a taxi, another worked at a gas station in Brookline, and a third worked at a convenience store. Several Watertown police officers stood watch outside the Waverley Avenue house Thursday night out of concern for traffic and potential acts of ``retaliation,'' said Watertown Police Chief Edward P. Deveau. Bilal Kaleem, executive director of the Muslim American Society of Boston, said he received a lot of calls and emails from members of the Muslim community who were appalled by the attempted bombing in New York and upset after learning that people in this area may have been connected to it. In Brookline, federal agents descended on a popular Mobil station in Coolidge Corner around 6 a.m. As station owner Elias Audy, a longtime Brookline civic leader who immigrated from Lebanon in the 1960s, looked on, authorities searched the car-repair bays as well as examined cars parked near the gas pumps. Federal agents focused on a silver Honda, looking extensively in its trunk. Around 10:40 a.m., Audy left on foot along Harvard Street, accompanied by a woman, and the pair entered a waiting car a half-dozen blocks away. Audy declined comment. An employee of a second Brookline Mobil station owned by Audy -- located at Route 9 and Cypress Streets -- said federal officials questioned Audy because of a Pakistani worker who had been recently hired. Members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation expressed alarm at the prospect that Shahzad, who is said to be cooperating with investigators, may have had accomplices in the Boston area. "It is sobering to learn that some of those leads appear to have taken investigators into Watertown and Brookline,'' said US Representative Edward J. Markey, a Malden Democrat whose district includes Watertown. Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis said that as soon as his department learned recently about a ``nexus to Boston" police stepped up security. "We put additional surveillance units on at any public gathering that was substantial,'' he said, including a recent series of events in Boston honoring Marines, and sporting events. Shahzad, 30, was arrested a little more than two days after a crude car bomb was found in a smoking car in Times Square. According to a criminal complaint filed by the FBI in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the naturalized citizen had returned to the United States on Feb. 3, telling immigration officials he had been visiting his parents for five months in Pakistan. He indicated he intended to stay at a motel in Connecticut while he looked for a place to live and for a job. On April 24, Shahzad allegedly met with the owner of a Nissan Pathfinder in a Bridgeport, Conn., supermarket parking lot, buying it for $1,300, paid in 13 $100 bills. The Pathfinder was found in Times Square a week later, loaded with propane tanks, gasoline canisters, and fertilizer, along with fireworks, clocks, wiring and other items, the FBI said. After being arrested, Shahzad allegedly admitted that he had recently received bomb-making training in Waziristan, Pakistan. The commander of US and allied forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, said Thursday that the widening investigation into the attempted bombing suggests a growing ability of terrorists and other radical groups in Pakistan to orchestrate attacks far from their base of operations. Michael Levenson, David Abel, Martin Finucane, Milton J. Valencia, Bryan Bender, Travis Andersen, Patricia Wen, and Kathy McCabe of the Globe staff, and Globe correspondent Sarah Thomas, contributed to this report. ||||| Pakistan has arrested a suspect linked to the Pakistani Taliban who said he helped the accused Times Square bomb plotter, The Washington Post reported on Thursday, citing U.S. officials. The suspect provided an "independent stream" of evidence that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack, the newspaper reported. The suspect also admitted helping Faisal Shahzad, the suspect in the attempted Times Square bombing, travel into Pakistan's tribal areas for bomb training, according to the report. Officials familiar with the probe cautioned that there have been inconsistencies in the two suspects' accounts, the Post said. The suspect in Pakistani custody "is believed to have a connection to the TTP (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan)," a U.S. intelligence official was quoted as saying. The official was cited as saying that certain clues have added to authorities' understanding of the Times Square plot, but "what is definitely true is that a lot of this comes from the statements of people directly involved." Three held after U.S. raids Earlier Thursday, three Pakistani men suspected of providing money to Shahzad were arrested in raids across the Northeast, law enforcement officials said. Investigators said it was not yet clear whether the three men knew how the money was going to be used. The men — two seized in the Boston area, one in Maine — were arrested as federal authorities searched homes and businesses in a coordinated series of raids centered in the Boston suburbs, on New York's Long Island, and in New Jersey. They were arrested on immigration violations — administrative, not criminal, charges. They were not charged with any terrorism-related crimes. Their names were not released. The raids resulted from evidence gathered in the investigation into the Times Square bomb attempt two weeks ago. FBI spokeswoman Gail Marcinkiewicz gave assurances Thursday that there was "no known immediate threat to the public or any active plot against the United States." Holder: Uncertain of intent In Washington, Attorney General Eric Holder said investigators believe there is evidence that the men were providing Shahzad, a Pakistan-born U.S. citizen, with money, but they have yet to determine whether the men knew the funds might have been intended for a terrorist act. FBI investigators move between a van and a home at 39 Waverley Ave., in Watertown, Mass., on Thursday. A top Massachusetts law enforcement official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still going on, said investigators are not sure whether the two Boston-area men were witting accomplices or simply moving funds, as is common among people from the Middle East and Central Asia who live in the U.S. "These people might be completely innocent and not know what they were providing money for," the official cautioned, "but it's clear there's a connection." Authorities have been investigating whether Shahzad — who authorities say needed only a few thousand dollars to buy the used SUV and the bomb components used in the attempted May 1 attack — was financed from overseas. Muslim immigrants for years have used informal money transfer networks known as "hawalas" — which rely on wire transfers, couriers and overnight mail and are cheaper and quicker than banks — to send cash to their families overseas. But since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, authorities have worked to dismantle the system, fearing it allows terrorists to raise and launder money. Overstayed visas Two of the men under arrest overstayed their visas and the third is already in removal proceedings, said another law enforcement official, who was not authorized to discuss the ongoing investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity. Shahzad, 30, has waived his right daily to appear in court since his May 1 arrest on charges he tried to blow up a van packed with a gasoline and propane outside Times Square's busy restaurants and Broadway theaters, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Thursday. He is continuing to provide investigators with information, Bharara said. Video: Three Pakistani men held "We are doing exactly what, I think, people want us to do, and that is to make sure we get all the information we can with respect to any associates he may have, and other information that would help us to prevent anything further from happening in the United States," the prosecutor said. Shahzad, a budget analyst who lives in Bridgeport, Conn., returned to the U.S. in February from five months in Pakistan, where authorities say he claims to have received training in making bombs. A law enforcement official called Thursday's raids "an evidence-gathering operation" and not a search for suspects. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said officials are investigating whether Shahzad got his cash through illegal money transfers. ‘FBI! Put your hands up!’ Authorities raided a home in Watertown and a Mobil gas station and a vehicle in Brookline, another Boston suburb; a condominium in Cherry Hill, N.J.; a print shop in Camden, N.J., and two Long Island homes, law enforcement officials said. Vinny Lacerra, 50, who lives across the street from the Watertown house, said he was in his living room about 6 a.m. when he heard somebody shout, "FBI! Put your hands up!" and saw 15 to 20 agents with guns drawn surrounding the house. Ashim Chakraborty, who owns a home raided in Centereach, N.Y., said FBI and police wanted to interview a Pakistani man and an American woman who live in the basement. The woman, who did not identify herself, was still in the basement Thursday afternoon, telling reporters only, "Drop dead. I'm an American." There was no immediate comment from Pakistan on the raids. Islamabad has said it was too early to say whether the Pakistani Taliban, which operates from the country's lawless northwest tribal region, was behind the Times Square plot, although the U.S. has said it found a definite link. Pakistan has detained at least four people with alleged connections to Shahzad. Information from the Washington Post, Reuters and The Associated Press is included in this report.

The FBI has raided a home in Watertown and a gas station in Brookline in connection with the attempted bombing in Times Square. Two people were taken into custody on immigration violations, the Boston Globe reports. An FBI spokeswoman says search warrants have been conducted at “several locations in the Northeast,” but emphasized that “there's no immediate threat to the public or active plot against the United States.” The searches came about because of evidence uncovered in the Times Square investigation; MSNBC reports that authorities are tracking down cash connections to the plot. A witness who lives across the street from the Watertown home says she saw 20 agents burst into the place at 6am. “They all had their guns drawn, pointed at the house.” FBI agents were also spotted at a gas station in Brookline, but it's unclear if that raid was related.

DOD is historically the federal government’s largest purchaser of services. Between 2001 and 2002, DOD’s reported spending for services contracting increased almost 18 percent, to about $93 billion. In addition to the sizeable sum of dollars involved, DOD contracts for a wide and complex range of services, such as professional, administrative, and management support; construction, repair, and maintenance; information technology; research and development; medical care; operation of government-owned facilities; and transportation, travel, and relocation. In each of the past 5 years, DOD has spent more on services than on supply and equipment goods (which includes weapon systems and other military items) (see fig. 1). Despite this huge investment in buying services, our work—and the work of the DOD Inspector General—has found that DOD’s spending on services could be more efficient and more effectively managed. In fact, we have identified DOD’s overall contract management as a high-risk area, most recently in our Performance and Accountability and High-Risk Series issued this past January. Responsibility for acquiring services is spread among individual military commands, weapon system program offices, or functional units in various defense organizations, with limited visibility or control at the DOD- or military-department level. Our reports on DOD’s contract management have recommended that DOD use a strategic approach to improve acquisition of services. Our work since 2000 at leading companies found that taking a more strategic approach to acquiring services enabled each company to stay competitive, reduce costs, and in many cases improve service levels. Pursuing such a strategic approach clearly pays off. Studies have reported some companies achieving savings of 10 to 20 percent of their total procurement costs, which include savings in the procurement of services. These leading companies reported achieving or expecting to achieve billions of dollars in savings as a result of taking a strategic approach to procurement. For example, table 1 summarizes the savings reported by the companies we studied most recently. The companies we studied did not follow exactly the same approach in the manner and degree to which they employed specific best practices, but the bottom line results were the same—substantial savings and, in many cases, service improvements. Figure 2 elaborates on the four broad principles and practices of leading companies that are critical to successfully carrying out the strategic approach. These principles and practices largely reflect a common sense approach, yet they also represent significant changes in the management approach companies use to acquire services. Companies that have been successful in transforming procurement generally begin with a corporate decision to pursue a more strategic approach to acquiring services, with senior management providing the direction, vision, and clout necessary to obtain initial buy-in and acceptance of procurement reengineering. When adopting a strategic, best-practices approach for changing procurement business processes, companies begin with a spend analysis to examine purchasing patterns to see who is buying what from whom. By arming themselves with this knowledge, they identify opportunities to leverage their buying power, reduce costs, and better manage their suppliers. Companies also institute a series of structural, process, and role changes aimed at moving away from a fragmented acquisition process to a more efficient and effective corporate process. These changes include adjustments to procurement management structure and processes such as instituting companywide purchasing of specific services; reshaping a decentralized process to follow a more coordinated, strategic approach; and increasing the involvement of the corporate procurement organization, including working across units to help identify service needs, select providers, and better manage contractor performance. DOD has made limited progress in its overall implementation of section 801, particularly with respect to establishing a management structure to oversee a more strategic approach to the acquisition of services, as envisioned by the legislative history of this provision. While DOD’s leaders express support for a strategic approach in this area, they have not translated that support into broad-based reforms. The experience of leading companies offers particularly relevant insights into the nature of long-term changes in management structure and business processes. Long-term changes will be needed if the military departments and the defense agencies are to be successful in adopting a more strategic approach to acquiring services and achieving substantial savings and other benefits. Private sector experience demonstrates the need to change how services are acquired—by modernizing management structure and business processes—and setting performance goals, including savings, and establishing accountability for achieving them. Such changes are needed to move DOD and the military departments from a fragmented approach to doing business to one that is more coordinated and strategically oriented. The end goal is to institute a departmentwide perspective—one that will ensure that the organization is getting the best overall value. Industry has found that several ingredients are critical to the successful adoption of a strategic approach. For example, senior management must provide continued support for common services acquisitions processes beyond the initial impetus. Another example is to cut across traditional organizational boundaries that contributed to the fragmented approach by restructuring procurement management and assigning a central or corporate procurement organization greater responsibility and authority for strategic planning and oversight of the companies’ service spending. Companies also involve business units in this coordinated approach by designating commodity managers to oversee key services and making extensive use of cross-functional commodity teams to make sure they have the right mix of knowledge, technical expertise, and credibility. Finally, companies extensively use metrics to measure total savings and other financial and nonfinancial benefits, to set realistic goals for improvement, and to document results over time. To date, DOD has not significantly transformed its management structure in response to the 2002 national defense authorization requirements, and its crosscutting effort to improve oversight will focus on only a portion of military department spending for services. Specifically, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and each of the military departments now have policies in place for a management structure and a process for reviewing major (i.e., large-dollar or program- critical) services acquisitions for adherence to performance-based, competition and other contracting requirements. (See app. I for a descriptive comparison of DOD and military department policies.) DOD modeled its review process for acquiring services after the review process for acquiring major weapons systems; the policy is intended to elevate high-dollar value services to the same level of importance and oversight. DOD intends that the new program review structure provide oversight before it commits the government to a major acquisition to ensure that military departments and defense agencies’ buying strategies are adequately planned, performance-based, and competed. The new policy similarly establishes a high-dollar threshold of $500 million or more for selecting which service acquisitions must move forward from lower-level field activities, commands, and program offices to the military department headquarters (and possibly to DOD) for advance review and approval. We expect that this new policy will lead to very few service acquisition strategies and a small portion of overall service spending being subjected to central oversight at the military department headquarters level or at DOD headquarters. DOD officials acknowledge that most service acquisitions cost less than the $500 million threshold required for headquarters-level reviews, and the total value of the few contract actions likely to be forwarded under that threshold will amount to a small portion of DOD’s total spending on services, which is approaching $100 billion each year. DOD’s review criteria indicate that the central reviews that do take place will be focused on approving individual acquisitions rather than coordinating smaller, more fragmented requirements for service contracts to leverage buying power and assessing how spending could be more effective. Our discussions with procurement policy officials in the various military departments confirmed that they expect no more than a few acquisitions to be reviewed at the DOD or military department headquarters level each year. While the new process complies with the act’s requirements to improve oversight of major service acquisitions, it has not led to centralized responsibility, visibility, or accountability over the majority of contracting for services. In response to the legislative requirement to develop an automated system to collect and analyze data, DOD has started a spend analysis pilot that views spending from a DOD-wide perspective and identifies large-scale savings opportunities. However, the scope of the pilot is limited to a test of a few service categories. Thirteen months after Congress directed that DOD create an automated system to support management decisions for the acquisition of services, the Deputy Secretary of Defense tasked a new team to carry out the pilot. In May 2003, DOD hired a vendor to support the team by performing an initial spend analysis and developing strategic sourcing business cases for only 5 to 10 service categories. Efforts to extract data for the pilot spend analysis will be restricted to information taken from centrally available databases on services contract actions (excluding research and development) in excess of $25,000, a limitation due to the 90-day time frame established for completing the spend analysis. Pilot projects and associated efforts will be completed by September 2004, so it is too early to tell how DOD will make the best use of the results. Even though DOD’s senior leadership called for dramatic changes to current practices for acquiring services about 2 years ago, and proposed various initiatives and plans to transform business processes, DOD’s early initiatives have not moved forward quickly, expanded or broadened in scope, or been well coordinated. The experience of leading companies we studied in our prior work indicates that successfully addressing service acquisition challenges requires concerted action and sustained top-level attention, efforts that must be reinforced by a sound strategic plan. Moreover, section 801 required DOD to issue guidance on how the military departments should carry out their management responsibilities for services contracting. To date, the only guidance that DOD has issued involves review of individual major service acquisitions for adherence to performance-based, competition, and other acquisition strategy requirements. DOD has not established a strategic plan that provides a road map for transforming its services contracting process and recognizes the integrated nature of services contracting management problems and their related solutions. Air Force, Army, and Navy headquarters procurement organizations have initiatives underway to better manage the acquisition of services, but they are in the early stages of development and unconnected to each other. Limited progress has taken place on key efforts to coordinate responsibility and leverage purchasing power, even in the pursuit of key goals such as reducing unnecessary spending and redirecting funds to higher priorities such as modernization and readiness. Information we obtained on the military departments’ early efforts suggests that military department leaders understand the value of a strategic approach in this area, but they have not yet translated that understanding into broad-based reforms to meet comprehensive performance goals, including savings. Although the Air Force, Army, and Navy initiatives that follow seek to include the basic principles of the framework used by leading companies when they acquire services, the initiatives are still under study, or in the early stages of implementation. At a January 2003 symposium, Air Force participants from headquarters and major commands discussed a vision for transforming contracting for services and taking a strategic, departmentwide approach based on commercial best practices. At this event, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Contracting called for rethinking business processes, noting that the Air Force spends over half of its discretionary dollars on services, yet most of the attention goes to managing goods. To move forward on this initiative, staff from acquisition headquarters and major commands are to work together on an 18-month project to capture, analyze, and use spend analysis data and develop an Air Force strategic sourcing plan for services acquisitions. Another key initiative participants considered was the establishment by the Air Force of a management council for services contracting. No time frame has been set for when the Air Force would activate such a council. However, the deputy assistant secretary’s vision for adopting a best practices approach to contracting for services calls for radically transforming business processes within 5 years and establishing cross-functional, Air Force-wide councils to consolidate market knowledge and carry out strategic sourcing projects. In July 2003, in the first such effort to take advantage of its overall buying power, the Air Force formed a commodity council responsible for developing departmentwide strategies for buying and managing information technology products. According to an Air Force official involved with this council, the lessons learned and best practices of this council will be carried forward to other commodity councils that will be established by the Air Force. Another category that the Air Force is considering for a future commodity council is construction services. In 2001, top Army leadership approved a consolidation of Army contracting activities that focuses on the areas of installation management and general-purpose information technology. This initiative covers only a portion of the Army’s service spending, and it involved the establishment of the Army Contracting Agency in October 2002 to centralize much installation-support contracting under a corporate management structure and called for consolidating similar and common use requirements to reduce costs. This central agency will be fully responsible for Army-wide purchases of general information technology and electronic commerce purchases and for large installation management contracting actions over $500,000 that were previously decentralized. The agency’s key anticipated benefit will be its ability to centralize large buys that are common Army-wide, while continuing to provide opportunities for small businesses to win contracts. To have an early demonstration of the value of this approach, the agency plans an October 2003 spend analysis of several services that could offer easy savings, including security guards, furniture refinishing, telecommunications, building demolition, and photocopying. The agency has yet to set a time frame for carrying out the consolidated purchases, which could be national or regional in scope. The agency’s organizational structure assigns regional executive responsibility for managing services contracting, and includes a high-level council in headquarters for overseeing more strategic approaches to buying Army installation support services. The Navy is considering pilot tests of a more strategic approach for services spending in a few categories. Senior Navy leadership began a study in September 2002 to recommend business process changes in the Navy’s acquisition program. A Navy official conducting the preliminary spend analysis of Navy purchasing data estimated opportunities to save $115 million through taking a more strategic, coordinated approach to buying $1.5 billion in support services (engineering; logistics; program, general, and facilities management; and training). The Navy official said that, sometime this year, senior Navy leadership is expected to approve the study’s recommendations to pilot-test consolidated acquisition for support services. To lead these innovative management approaches, the Secretary of the Navy earlier this year approved a new position for a Director of Program Analysis and Business Transformation within the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Acquisition Management. A Navy procurement policy official involved with the ongoing effort told us that the Navy’s pilot tests are likely to be affected by DOD’s spend analysis pilot that is testing DOD-wide strategic sourcing strategies for 5 to 10 services. Since Navy procurement policy officials are also involved in DOD’s pilot, he anticipates having to coordinate the Navy’s pilot as both initiatives move forward. A strategic plan could help DOD ensure that these early initiatives successfully lead to lower costs and improved acquisition of services. Such a plan would identify, coordinate, and prioritize these initiatives; integrate the military departments’ services contracting management structures; ensure comprehensive coverage of services spending; promote and support collaboration; and establish accountability, transparency, and visibility for tracking performance and achieving results. However, some of the procurement policy officials we interviewed have expressed skepticism that broad-based reforms to foster a more strategic approach are necessary or beneficial, or that DOD could fully adopt private sector strategies in view of its current decentralized acquisition environment and other constraints. Given the federal government’s critical budget challenges, DOD’s transformation of its business processes is more important than ever if the department is to get the most from every dollar spent. Senior leadership has for 2 years expressed a commitment to improving the department’s acquisition of services. Nonetheless, DOD and the military departments remain in the early stages of developing new business processes for the strategic acquisition of services. DOD’s leaders have made a commitment to adopt best practices and make dramatic changes. Translating that commitment into specific management improvements will allow DOD to take on the more difficult tasks of developing a reliable and accurate picture of spending on services across DOD; determining what structures, mechanisms, and metrics can be employed to foster a strategic approach; and tailoring those structures to meet DOD’s unique requirements. Given that DOD’s spending on services contracts is approaching $100 billion annually, the potential benefits for enhancing visibility and control of services spending are significant. To achieve significant improvements across the range of services DOD purchases, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to work with the military departments and the defense agencies to further strengthen the management structure. This structure, established in response to section 801, should promote the use of best commercial practices such as centralizing key functions, conducting spend analyses, expanding the use of cross-functional commodity teams, achieving strategic orientation, achieving savings by reducing purchasing costs and other efficiencies, and improving service contracts’ performance and outcomes. We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary to develop a strategic plan with guidance for the military departments and the defense agencies on how to carry out their responsibilities for managing acquisition of services. Key elements of this guidance should address improving knowledge of services spending by collecting and analyzing data about services procurements across DOD and within military departments and defense agencies, promoting collaboration across DOD and within military departments and defense agencies by establishing cross-functional teams to carry out coordinated purchasing of services, and establishing strategic savings and performance goals, measuring results, and ensuring accountability by assigning high-level responsibility for monitoring those results. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred in principle with the recommendation to further strengthen the management structure established in response to section 801 and partially concurred with the recommendation to develop a plan with guidance to the military departments on carrying out their strategic and centralized responsibilities for the acquisition of services. DOD expects that various initiatives being pursued to enhance services acquisition management structures and processes—such as the management structure for reviewing individual service acquisitions valued at more than $500 million and the spend analysis pilot assessed in this report—will ultimately provide the information with which to decide what overarching joint management and business process changes are necessary. DOD cites these initiatives as demonstrating a full commitment to improving acquisition of services. DOD further states that these efforts—such as collecting and enhancing data, performing spend analyses, and establishing commodity teams—are similar to industry best practices—and have already had significant impacts on the manner in which services are acquired. We agree that the initiatives are positive steps in the right direction to improve acquisition of services. However, it is too early to tell if these early efforts will lead DOD and the military departments to make the type of long-term changes that are necessary to achieve significant results in terms of savings and service improvements. Moreover, according to DOD, factors such as unusual size, organizational complexity, and restrictive acquisition environment mean that DOD cannot adhere strictly to the commercial best practices described in the report. Yet, none of the companies we studied followed exactly the same approach in employing specific best practices. Likewise, DOD and the military departments need to work together and determine how these practices can be adapted to fit their unique needs, challenges, and complexities. Significant bottom line results in terms of savings and service improvements are likely with adequate follow-through on the various initiatives. DOD’s strategic plan should be explicit about how and when appropriate follow-through actions will take place so that significant, long-lasting performance improvements and cost savings are achieved. DOD’s comments can be found in appendix II. Section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 requires DOD to establish a management structure and a program review structure and to collect and analyze data on purchases in order to improve management of the acquisition of services. As described in the legislative history, these requirements provide tools with which the department can promote the use of best commercial practices to reform DOD’s services procurement management and oversight and to achieve significant savings. Section 801 also directed us to assess DOD’s compliance with the requirements and to report to congressional armed services committees on the assessment. To conduct this work, we interviewed officials—including those responsible for Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy, and Acquisition Resources and Analysis—in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. We also interviewed officials responsible for service acquisition policy and management in the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy. We interviewed both DOD’s and the various services’ officials about policy memoranda and related actions taken to implement section 801 requirements, including the evolving nature of implementation actions over several months. We also discussed comparisons between DOD’s and the military departments’ services acquisition management reforms and leading companies’ best practices for taking a strategic approach, which were identified in our previous work and promoted by the legislation. To assess compliance with the policy and guidance requirements for the management and program review structures, we reviewed internal memoranda and policy documents issued by the Under Secretary of Defense and the military departments. For background on DOD’s contract spending on services, we analyzed computer-generated data extracted from the Defense Contract Action Data System. We did not independently verify the information contained in the database. There are known data reliability problems with this data source, but we determined that the data are sufficient to provide general trend information for background reporting purposes. We conducted our review from November 2002 to July 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Deputy Secretary of Defense; the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and the Under Secretaries of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) and (Comptroller). We will also provide copies to others on request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Should you have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please call me at (202) 512-4841. Other contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix III. In response to 2002 national defense authorization requirements, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and the military departments developed and implemented policies for a program review structure to oversee large-dollar and program-critical services acquisitions. The review process, modeled after DOD’s review process for major weapons systems, seeks to ensure major service acquisition strategies are adequately planned, performance-based, competed, and address socioeconomic goals. In most cases, an acquisition must be valued at $500 million or more to prompt review at the headquarters level for DOD and the military departments. Table 2 compares selected aspects of the legislation’s requirements with, and the implementation status of, DOD and military department policies. In addition to those named above, Cordell Smith, Bob Swierczek, and Ralph White made key contributions to this report.

The Department of Defense's (DOD) spending on service contracts approaches $100 billion annually, but recent legislation directs DOD to manage its services procurement more effectively. Leading companies transformed management practices and achieved major savings after they analyzed spending patterns and coordinated procurement. This report evaluates DOD's implementation of the legislation in light of congressional interest in promoting the use of best commercial practices for acquiring services. DOD and the military departments each have a management structure in place for reviewing individual services acquisitions valued at $500 million or more, but that approach does not provide a departmentwide assessment of how spending for services could be more effective. Greater attention is needed by DOD management to promote a strategic orientation by setting performance goals, including savings goals, and ensuring accountability for achieving them. To support management decisions and improve visibility over spending on service contracts, DOD is developing an automated system to collect and analyze data by piloting a spend analysis. The analysis views spending from a DOD-wide perspective and identifies large-scale savings opportunities, but its scope is limited, and it is too early to tell how the department can make the best use of its results. The military departments are in the early stages of separate initiatives that may lead them to adopt a strategic approach to buying services, but DOD lacks a plan that coordinates these initiatives or provides a road map for future efforts.

"It was painful watching CNN try to hold on to the idea that the Covington kids actually were guilty, despite playing all of the video that shows they were the ones that were attacked, they were the ones who were approached, they were the ones who were not provoking anybody." ||||| Contrary to what Rush Limbaugh claims, George W. Bush and Laura Bush did not vote for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, a spokesperson for the former president said Tuesday. Instead, the Bushes left that section blank and only voted for Republican candidates in down ballot races. Limbaugh, the most popular conservative talk radio show host in the country, had led his listeners to believe that the Bushes had cast their vote for Clinton -- a claim Bush's spokesperson rebutted Tuesday evening. "Rush is wrong and should apologize," Freddy Ford, the spokesman for the former president, told CNN. On Tuesday night, Limbaugh published a correction at the top of his website: "We've been told by President George W. Bush's office that President Bush did not vote for Hillary Clinton as was reported on today's show. He voted two weeks ago and did not vote for her." Related: Trump says Bush not voting for him is 'sad' Limbaugh's initial remarks were picked up by several media outlets, including The Washington Examiner, The Hill and New York Magazine, as well as conservative outlets like Breitbart News. Ford's effort to correct Limbaugh marks the first time the Bushes have weighed in on the presidential race. The former president had previously indicated that he intended to sit the race out. He has been traveling around the country campaigning and fundraising for down ballot candidates like Republican Senator Rob Portman. His father, former president George H.W. Bush, has privately told friends that he would vote for Hillary Clinton. His brother Jeb Bush, who ran against Trump in the GOP primaries, preferred to keep his own vote private, telling CNN last week that he believes in a secret ballot. ||||| (CNN) Former President George H.W. Bush said Monday that he will vote for Hillary Clinton in November, according to sources close to the 41st President -- an extraordinary rebuke of his own party's nominee. The sources said this was not the first time Bush had disclosed his intention to vote for Clinton. The comments came during a receiving line for board members of the bipartisan Points of Light Foundation when Bush was speaking to Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy's daughter and the former Maryland lieutenant governor. There were roughly 40 people in the room, and it's not clear how many people heard him, though multiple sources did. The Republican former president's embrace of the Democratic nominee represents a dramatic new chapter in the complicated three-decade-old relationship between the two most prominent families in American politics. It's a stunning political move -- one that comes just 49 days from the election, and less than a week before Clinton and Donald Trump square off in their first debate. Trump's campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, told CNN's Erin Burnett Tuesday that she respects "the 92-year-old former president very much and his decision." "It is ironic that he would vote for the wife of the man who knocked him out of the race," she added on "Erin Burnett OutFront." "But look, this was a bruising primary ... so I know there are a lot of hurt feelings there." News of his support for Clinton came first on Facebook, when Kennedy Townsend posted a photo of herself with George H.W. Bush, along with the caption: "The President told me he's voting for Hillary!!" Kennedy Townsend sits on the advisory board of the Points of Light Foundation. Bush family representatives declined to respond publicly. "The vote President Bush will cast as a private citizen in some 50 days will be just that: a private vote cast in some 50 days. He is not commenting on the presidential race in the interim," Bush spokesman Jim McGrath said in a statement. But sources with knowledge of the conversation told CNN they were surprised and disappointed that Kennedy Townsend had publicly shared a private conversation with the former president. JUST WATCHED The Bush and Clinton relationship roller coaster Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH The Bush and Clinton relationship roller coaster 01:59 Kennedy Townsend declined to comment through a spokesman at the Rock Creek Group, where she works as managing director. She later took down the Facebook post. GOP's Trump divide Trump's controversial candidacy has split the group of former Republican nominees. Mitt Romney has hammered Trump in speeches and on Twitter, calling him unfit for office. But former Kansas Sen. Bob Dole has endorsed Trump, as has Arizona Sen. John McCain -- though somewhat reluctantly, often referring to "the Republican nominee" rather than Trump by name. Neither George H.W. Bush nor George W. Bush had weighed in on the general election -- even as Trump savaged George W. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq. However, many of the 41st and 43rd presidents' Cabinet secretaries and national security officials have backed Clinton. George H.W. Bush national security adviser Brent Scowcroft endorsed Clinton in June, saying she "has the wisdom and experience to lead our country at this critical time." George W. Bush Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said on CNN in August that he "would have preferred Jeb Bush, but I think Hillary is a great choice. I am afraid of what Donald Trump would do to this country." Photos: Donald Trump's rise Photos: Donald Trump's rise President-elect Donald Trump has been in the spotlight for years. From developing real estate and producing and starring in TV shows, he became a celebrity long before winning the White House. Hide Caption 1 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump at age 4. He was born in 1946 to Fred and Mary Trump in New York City. His father was a real estate developer. Hide Caption 2 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump, left, in a family photo. He was the second-youngest of five children. Hide Caption 3 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump, center, stands at attention during his senior year at the New York Military Academy in 1964. Hide Caption 4 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump, center, wears a baseball uniform at the New York Military Academy in 1964. After he graduated from the boarding school, he went to college. He started at Fordham University before transferring and later graduating from the Wharton School, the University of Pennsylvania's business school. Hide Caption 5 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump stands with Alfred Eisenpreis, New York's economic development administrator, in 1976 while they look at a sketch of a new 1,400-room renovation project of the Commodore Hotel. After graduating college in 1968, Trump worked with his father on developments in Queens and Brooklyn before purchasing or building multiple properties in New York and Atlantic City, New Jersey. Those properties included Trump Tower in New York and Trump Plaza and multiple casinos in Atlantic City. Hide Caption 6 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump attends an event to mark the start of construction of the New York Convention Center in 1979. Hide Caption 7 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump wears a hard hat at the Trump Tower construction site in New York in 1980. Hide Caption 8 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump was married to Ivana Zelnicek Trump from 1977 to 1990, when they divorced. They had three children together: Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric. Hide Caption 9 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise The Trump family, circa 1986. Hide Caption 10 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump uses his personal helicopter to get around New York in 1987. Hide Caption 11 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump stands in the atrium of the Trump Tower. Hide Caption 12 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump attends the opening of his new Atlantic City casino, the Taj Mahal, in 1989. Hide Caption 13 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump signs his second book, "Trump: Surviving at the Top," in 1990. Trump has published at least 16 other books, including "The Art of the Deal" and "The America We Deserve." Hide Caption 14 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump and singer Michael Jackson pose for a photo before traveling to visit Ryan White, a young child with AIDS, in 1990. Hide Caption 15 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump dips his second wife, Marla Maples, after the couple married in a private ceremony in New York in December 1993. The couple divorced in 1999 and had one daughter together, Tiffany. Hide Caption 16 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump putts a golf ball in his New York office in 1998. Hide Caption 17 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise An advertisement for the television show "The Apprentice" hangs at Trump Tower in 2004. The show launched in January of that year. In January 2008, the show returned as "Celebrity Apprentice." Hide Caption 18 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise A 12-inch talking Trump doll is on display at a toy store in New York in September 2004. Hide Caption 19 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump attends a news conference in 2005 that announced the establishment of Trump University. From 2005 until it closed in 2010, Trump University had about 10,000 people sign up for a program that promised success in real estate. Three separate lawsuits -- two class-action suits filed in California and one filed by New York's attorney general -- argued that the program was mired in fraud and deception. Trump's camp rejected the suits' claims as "baseless." And Trump has charged that the New York case against him is politically motivated. Hide Caption 20 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump attends the U.S. Open tennis tournament with his third wife, Melania Knauss-Trump, and their son, Barron, in 2006. Trump and Knauss married in 2005. Hide Caption 21 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump wrestles with "Stone Cold" Steve Austin at WrestleMania in 2007. Trump has close ties with the WWE and its CEO, Vince McMahon. Hide Caption 22 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise For "The Apprentice," Trump was honored with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in January 2007. Hide Caption 23 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump appears on the set of "The Celebrity Apprentice" with two of his children -- Donald Jr. and Ivanka -- in 2009. Hide Caption 24 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump poses with Miss Universe contestants in 2011. Trump had been executive producer of the Miss Universe, Miss USA and Miss Teen USA pageants since 1996. Hide Caption 25 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise In 2012, Trump announces his endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Hide Caption 26 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump speaks in Sarasota, Florida, after accepting the Statesman of the Year Award at the Sarasota GOP dinner in August 2012. It was shortly before the Republican National Convention in nearby Tampa. Hide Caption 27 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump appears on stage with singer Nick Jonas and television personality Giuliana Rancic during the 2013 Miss USA pageant. Hide Caption 28 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise In June 2015, during a speech from Trump Tower, Trump announced that he was running for President. He said he would give up "The Apprentice" to run. Hide Caption 29 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump -- flanked by U.S. Sens. Marco Rubio, left, and Ted Cruz -- speaks during a CNN debate in Miami on March 10. Trump dominated the GOP primaries and emerged as the presumptive nominee in May. Hide Caption 30 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise The Trump family poses for a photo in New York in April. Hide Caption 31 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump speaks during a campaign event in Evansville, Indiana, on April 28. After Trump won the Indiana primary, his last two competitors dropped out of the GOP race. Hide Caption 32 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump delivers a speech at the Republican National Convention in July, accepting the party's nomination for President. "I have had a truly great life in business," he said. "But now, my sole and exclusive mission is to go to work for our country -- to go to work for you. It's time to deliver a victory for the American people." Hide Caption 33 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump faces Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in the first presidential debate, which took place in Hempstead, New York, in September. Hide Caption 34 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump apologizes in a video, posted to his Twitter account in October, for vulgar and sexually aggressive remarks he made a decade ago regarding women. "I said it, I was wrong and I apologize," Trump said, referring to lewd comments he made during a previously unaired taping of "Access Hollywood." Multiple Republican leaders rescinded their endorsements of Trump after the footage was released. Hide Caption 35 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump walks on stage with his family after he was declared the election winner on November 9. "Ours was not a campaign, but rather, an incredible and great movement," he told his supporters in New York. Hide Caption 36 of 37 Photos: Donald Trump's rise Trump is joined by his family as he is sworn in as President on January 20. Hide Caption 37 of 37 And Louis Wade Sullivan, the Health and Human Services secretary under George H.W. Bush and the only African-American in his Cabinet, said this month that "though my enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton is somewhat tempered, I certainly believe she is an infinitely better choice for president than Donald Trump." But George H.W. Bush isn't speaking for his entire family. Marvin Bush, the former president's youngest son, has said he would vote for Libertarian Gary Johnson. George P. Bush, George H.W. Bush's grandson, has backed Trump. And Jeb Bush, Trump's former primary rival, has said he won't vote for Trump or Clinton. A representative for George W. Bush wouldn't comment on Kennedy Townsend's Facebook post or how George H.W. Bush would vote. The representative simply said George W. Bush is "spending his time working to keep the Senate in Republican hands and is not commenting on the presidential campaign." The Bush-Clinton relationship The evolving relationship between the Bush and Clinton families began in 1992, when Bill Clinton ran against -- and defeated -- incumbent President George H.W. Bush. Eight years later, with Clinton term-limited out of office, Bush's son, then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush, succeeded Clinton on a pledge to "restore honor and dignity" to the White House -- a not-so-subtle knock on Clinton's marital infidelity. Photos: A look at political families Photos: A look at political families Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump introduces his son Donald Trump Jr. as he addressed a crowd this April in Indianapolis. Trump Jr. has said that if his father becomes president, he's interested in being his secretary of the Interior. Hide Caption 1 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton attend a State Department dinner in 2012. Hillary Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. Hide Caption 2 of 30 Photos: A look at political families U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas, left, and his twin brother then-San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro at the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. Now secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Julian Castro is a contender to be the Democratic vice-president nominee. Hide Caption 3 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Political families – Beau Biden embraces his father, Vice President Joe Biden, at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.. Before his death in 2015, Beau served as Delware's attorney general. Hide Caption 4 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell succeeded her husband, former U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Michigan, in the seat he held for 58 years until his retirement in 2015. Hide Caption 5 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Political families – Liz Cheney, daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney, announced that she was running for Senate in Wyoming in 2014. Her bid set up an intra-GOP battle with U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, a three-time incumbent. She dropped her Senate bid in January 2014. Hide Caption 6 of 30 Photos: A look at political families U.S. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Michigan, comes from a prominent family in that state's politics. His brother Carl Levin was the state's senior senator until his retirement in January 2015. And his uncle, Theodore Levin, was a federal judge. Hide Caption 7 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – The night after John F. Kennedy won the 1960 presidential election this family portrait was made in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. Sitting, from left, Eunice Shriver (on chair arm), Rose Kennedy, Joseph Kennedy, Jacqueline Kennedy, head turned away from camera, and Ted Kennedy. Back row, from left, Ethel Kennedy, Stephen Smith, Jean Smith, President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Pat Lawford, Sargent Shriver, Joan Kennedy, and Peter Lawford. Hide Caption 8 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – The late U.S. Sen. Prescott Bush, R-Connecticut, center, was the father of former President George H.W. Bush, left, and grandfather of former President George W. Bush, far left. Hide Caption 9 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Political families – The Bush family is a bona fide modern American political dynasty. Former President George W. Bush and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush are the sons of former President George H.W. Bush. George P. Bush, Jeb's son, is a Texas land commissioner. George H.W. Bush is the son of Prescott Bush, a senator from Connecticut. Here, the former presidents and Jeb, right, pose for a photo at the christening of the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush. Hide Caption 10 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – George P. Bush speaks during the 2011 Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans. The grandson of former President George H.W. Bush is a Texas land commissioner. Hide Caption 11 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – Former President Jimmy Carter spends time with his grandson Jason, wife Rosalynn, and daughter Amy in 1976. Jason Carter was a Democratic member of the Georgia State Senate. Hide Caption 12 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – John Adams was the second president of the United States. His son John Quincy Adams was the sixth President. Hide Caption 13 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – John Quincy Adams is pictured. Hide Caption 14 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu and his sister, then-U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, are interviewed during a special edition of "Meet The Press" in New Orleans in 2010. Hide Caption 15 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – Former U.S. Sen. Sam Nunn, his wife Colleen, daughter Michelle, and his grandchildren walk the beach at Sea Island, Georgia, in 2007. Michelle Nunn was a Democratic candidate for Georgia's U.S. Senate seat in 2014. Hide Caption 16 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colorado, and his cousin Sen. Tom Udall, D-New Mexico, attend a weekly Senate policy luncheon in Washington in 2012. Hide Caption 17 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – Former Arkansas attorney general, Sen. Mark Pryor, holds a news conference in Washington in 2006. Pryor is the son of former U.S. Sen. David Pryor, D-Arkansas. Hide Caption 18 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – Former U.S. Sen. David Pryor. Hide Caption 19 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Political families – Father-and-son New York governors, Andrew, left, and Mario Cuomo appear at a rally in 2006. CNN anchor Chris Cuomo is another of Mario Cuomo's sons. Hide Caption 20 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Political families – U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, is the daughter of late Thomas D'Alesandro Jr., a Baltimore mayor and congressman. D'Alesandro, center, attends Pelosi's swearing-in in 1978. Hide Caption 21 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Political families – George W. Romney, with his son Mitt and his wife Lenore in 1962, announces his intention to run for governor of Michigan. The elder Romney went on to run for president in 1968, and his son Mitt served as governor of Massachusetts before winning the GOP nomination for president in 2012. Hide Caption 22 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Political families – The Kennedy clan experienced a two-year absence on Capitol Hill beginning in 2011 with the departure of U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-Rhode Island, shown here with his father, U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy, at President Barack Obama's inauguration in 2009. The hiatus ended when U.S. Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy III, D-Massachusetts, was sworn in 2013. He is the son of former U.S. Rep. Joe Kennedy and the grandson of the late U.S. Sen. Robert Kennedy. Hide Caption 23 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Political families – Then-Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tennessee, left, and his son, Harold Jr. shake hands with supporters in this 1996 photo. Harold Ford Sr. announced earlier that year that he was retiring from the seat he had held for 22 years and Harold Ford Jr. won the seat that fall. Hide Caption 24 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Political families – Democratic New York state Sen. Jose M. Serrano is the son of U.S. Rep. Jose E. Serrano. Hide Caption 25 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Political families – U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is the daughter of Frank Murkowski, who also represented Alaska in the Senate and was later the state's governor. Hide Caption 26 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – William Taft was the 27th president of the United States and served from 1909-1913. Since Taft's presidency, three of his relatives have represented Ohio in the U.S. Senate. Hide Caption 27 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – Sen. Robert A. Taft is one of three Tafts to represent Ohio in the U.S. Senate. Hide Caption 28 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – Sen. Robert Taft Jr. attends a hearing in Washington in 1973. He is one of three Tafts to represent Ohio in the U.S. Senate. Hide Caption 29 of 30 Photos: A look at political families Photos: Political families – Sen. Kingsley Taft is one of three Tafts to represent Ohio in the U.S. Senate. Hide Caption 30 of 30 But Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush have also spent their post-presidencies teaming up for philanthropic endeavors. And in recent years, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have increasingly appeared together. The two grew so close that George W. Bush has referred to Clinton as his "brother from another mother," and Clinton has said the two bonded over becoming grandfathers. A Bush-Clinton matchup Early in the 2016 campaign cycle, it appeared the two families could be headed for another showdown with the presidency on the line: Hillary Clinton was seeking the Democratic nomination, while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush -- the 41st president's son and the 43rd president's brother -- was a Republican candidate and a fundraising powerhouse. Even if George H.W. Bush hadn't endorsed Hillary Clinton, it was hard to envision him backing Trump. Neither of the former Bush presidents attended the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, where Trump became the GOP's nominee -- with the Bush family staying out of presidential politics after Jeb Bush, denounced repeatedly by Trump as "low-energy," exited the race. CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to clarify the context in which George H.W. Bush made his comment about voting for Hillary Clinton.

Neither of the Bush presidents voted for the GOP nominee in Election 2016—but while No. 41 reportedly opted to cast his ballot for Hillary Clinton, No. 43 took a different route. George W. Bush and his wife, Laura, "voted 'None of the Above' for president," spokesman Freddy Ford told Reuters via email. The couple did vote for all Republicans in down-ballot races, however. And so one person who should be offering an "I'm sorry" to the former first couple, per Ford: Rush Limbaugh. CNNMoney reports that Limbaugh had led his radio program listeners to think Dubya and Mrs. Bush had voted for Clinton. "Rush is wrong and should apologize," Ford said. Limbaugh didn't exactly express regrets for misspeaking, but at the top of his website is now a short correction that reads: "We've been told by President George W. Bush's office that President Bush did not vote for Hillary Clinton as was reported on today's show. He voted two weeks ago and did not vote for her." Who's not giving up his pick: one-time 2016 presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who told CNN last week he would be keeping his vote secret.

Environmental issues have received growing attention in trade liberalization debates as trade agreements have broadened in scope, from primarily involving negotiations to reduce tariffs, to including negotiations on nontariff trade barriers. Congressional interest in addressing environmental concerns in trade agreements has extended to the debate over renewing the President's trade promotion authority (TPA). Trade promotion authority, also referred to as "fast-track" negotiating authority, provides that Congress will consider trade agreements within mandatory deadlines, with limited debate, and without amendment. To maintain its influence on the content of agreements negotiated by the President under TPA, Congress generally includes objectives in such legislation to establish priorities for negotiators and places congressional consultation requirements on the Executive Branch. Congress last provided TPA under the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (OTCA, P.L. 100-418 ). In OTCA, environmental concerns were addressed only in negotiating objectives regarding trade in services and foreign direct investment. These provisions directed U.S. negotiators, in pursuing stated objectives, to take into account legitimate United States domestic objectives including, but not limited to, the protection of legitimate health or safety, essential security, environmental, consumer or employment opportunity interests and the law and regulations related thereto (19 U.S.C. §§ 2901(b)(9), (11)). Agreements entered into under this authority are the NAFTA and the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements which included the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Although OTCA lacked specific environmental objectives, some environmental concerns were addressed in the NAFTA, its environmental side agreement, and certain Uruguay Round Agreements and Ministerial Decisions. This authority expired in 1994. Congressional consideration of the relationship between trade and environment has continued to grow. Efforts to renew TPA in the 104 th , 105 th and 106 th Congresses failed in large part because of disagreement over the inclusion of environmental and labor issues. The 107 th Congress gave unprecedented consideration to these issues, as the successful passage of TPA legislation became dependent in part on the treatment of environmental and labor issues. (For more information, see CRS Issue Brief 10084, Trade Promotion Authority (Fast-track Authority for Trade Agreements): Background and Developments in the 107 th Congress. ) The Trade Act of 2002 ( P.L. 107-210 , Title XXI) renews the President's Trade Promotion Authority. The Act covers trade agreements reached by June 1, 2005, with a two-year extension possible. The law lists overall and principal objectives in trade negotiations and priorities the President must promote to maintain U.S. competitiveness. Under provisions of the Act, agreements would have to make progress in meeting the negotiating objectives, and the President would have to satisfy the consultation and assessment requirements. The Trade Act also establishes a new congressional advisory body on trade negotiations called the Congressional Oversight Group. The 2002 Trade Act contains several environmental objectives and related provisions, and, overall, gives substantially greater consideration to environmental matters than did the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, under which fast-track procedures were last approved. The environment-related negotiating objectives and priorities included in the new law are discussed below. The law includes two overall negotiating objectives on environment. The first objective is "to ensure that trade and environmental policies are mutually supportive and to seek to protect and preserve the environment and enhance the international means of doing so, while optimizing the use of the world's resources." The second overall negotiating objective is to seek provisions in agreements under which parties "strive to ensure that they do not weaken or reduce the protections afforded in domestic environmental and labor laws as an encouragement for trade"(Sections 2102(a)(5) and (7)). This objective parallels language in the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and NAFTA (Chapter 11, Investment). Both of these trade agreements assert that it is inappropriate to encourage trade by relaxing domestic environmental laws and generally state that a party should not waive or otherwise derogate from such measures to attract investment. NAFTA, Article 1114, further provides that a party may request consultations if it considers that another party has done so. Environmental advocates had argued for such a trade negotiating objective to deter countries from weakening their environmental standards to promote a trade advantage. They further called for making such actions subject to dispute settlement procedures. Those who opposed this proposal expressed concern that, if this approach were taken, legitimate changes in domestic environmental measures could be subject to challenge by U.S. trading partners. Under the Trade Act, the overall negotiating objectives are not subject to dispute settlement procedures. The 2002 Trade Act also includes several principal negotiating objectives on environment (Section 2102(b)(11)). In contrast to the overall negotiating objectives, the principal negotiating objectives are subject to dispute settlement procedures. Perhaps most notably, the new law states that it is a principal negotiating objective "to ensure that a party to a trade agreement with the United States does not fail to effectively enforce its environmental or labor laws, through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction, in a manner affecting trade between the United States and that party ... ." A related objective is to recognize that parties retain the right to exercise discretion with respect to prosecutorial, regulatory and compliance matters and to make decisions regarding the allocation of resources to enforcement with respect to other environmental matters determined to have higher priorities. These two negotiating objectives mirror provisions contained in the U.S.-Jordan FTA and the NAFTA environmental side agreement. However, this latter objective goes further than the U.S.-Jordan FTA to clarify the rights of a government to establish its own levels of environmental protection by adding, "no retaliation may be authorized based on the exercise of these rights or the right to establish domestic labor standards and levels of environmental protection." Other principal negotiating objectives on environment contained in both bills and the final law include: (1) strengthening trading partners' capacity to protect the environment through the promotion of sustainable development; (2) reducing or eliminating government practices or policies that unduly threaten sustainable development; (3) seeking market access for U.S. environmental technologies, goods, and services; and (4) ensuring that environmental, health or safety policies or practices of the parties do not arbitrarily discriminate against U.S. exports or serve as disguised barriers to trade. The 2002 Trade Act sets forth other principal negotiating objectives that have implications for environmental laws and related disputes under trade agreements. These include the objectives on dispute settlement, foreign investment, transparency, and regulatory practices. The effectiveness of trade agreement obligations is related to the strength of an agreement's dispute settlement process. Environmental interests argued that environmental obligations should be included within trade agreements and that disputes involving these obligations should be treated the same as commercial disputes, including using the same remedies. Business interests and others favored flexibility in addressing various kinds of disputes. The Act parallels the U.S.-Jordan FTA and goes beyond NAFTA by calling for the inclusion within the texts of trade agreements of an obligation for parties to enforce their environmental laws. The dispute settlement objectives (Section 2102(b)(12)) direct negotiators to seek provisions that treat all U.S. principal negotiating objectives equally with respect to the ability to resort to dispute settlement, and to have available equivalent dispute settlement procedures and remedies. Thus, the law seeks to make all disputes equally subject to dispute settlement, but it provides flexibility in procedures and remedies. Investment provisions have become an environmental issue because of the types of claims that have been brought under the NAFTA investment provisions allowing foreign investors to arbitrate disputes with NAFTA parties. In some cases, foreign investors have sought compensation for the negative impacts of government environmental regulations, claiming that the government action is a form of "indirect expropriation" or is "tantamount to expropriation." NAFTA provides that compensation must be equal to the fair market value of the expropriated investment. These NAFTA provisions and related claims have prompted concerns by states and environmental groups that this language may dampen the enforcement of environmental regulations in signatory countries, and that foreign investors may have greater rights under the NAFTA with respect to expropriations by federal, state, or local government in the United States than domestic investors have under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. The new TPA provisions appear to address this concern to some degree. The principal negotiating objectives for investment (Section 2102(b)(3)) seek to reduce: trade-distorting barriers to foreign investment, while ensuring that foreign investors in the United States are not accorded greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than United States investors in the United States, and to secure for investors important rights comparable to those that would be available under United States legal principles and practice. The investment objective calls for achieving these goals by seeking the establishment of "standards for expropriation and compensation for expropriation, consistent with United States legal principles and practice" and by "seeking to establish standards for fair and equitable treatment consistent with United States legal principles and practice, including the principle of due process." The Trade Act further calls for negotiators to seek to improve mechanisms used to resolve disputes between an investor and a government through: mechanisms to eliminate frivolous claims; procedures to enhance opportunities for public input into the formulation of government positions; and the establishment of an appellate body to "provide coherence to the interpretations of investment provisions in trade agreements." It calls for negotiators to ensure the "fullest measure of transparency" in investment disputes by: ensuring that requests for dispute settlement are made public promptly, ensuring that proceedings, submissions, findings and decisions are made public; and establishing a mechanism for accepting amicus curiae submissions from businesses, unions, and nongovernmental organizations. A provision in the Senate-passed bill, that was dropped in conference, would have directed the President to negotiate an amendment to Chapter 11 of the NAFTA to increase the transparency of Chapter 11 proceedings in specified ways, and would have required the U.S. Trade Representative to certify to the Congress within one year of enactment that the President has fulfilled these requirements. Environmental groups favored adding language in the investment objectives that would direct negotiators to seek provisions in trade agreements to limit expropriation provisions and otherwise protect legitimate environmental measures from challenge by foreign investors. Other stakeholders wanted to ensure checks are maintained against the potential for disguised or unfair barriers to foreign investment. Neither the House nor Senate bill called for negotiators to seek exceptions for environmental measures in the investment-related obligations of trade agreements. An amendment was offered in the Senate to require agreements to limit expropriation provisions, "including by ensuring that payment of compensation is not required for regulatory measures that cause a mere diminution in the value of private property" and to provide that environmental and health protection measures are generally consistent with an agreement. The failure of this and related proposals resulted in reduced support for the Trade Act by some in Congress. Various interests, including the Administration, environmental groups and others, have put a priority on increasing transparency (i.e., openness) in trade matters and increasing public access to the dispute resolution process. Environmental and business interests agree that greater openness would allow increased awareness of the possible impacts of trade decisions relevant to their concerns. The House and Senate bills contained identical provisions to increase public participation in trade matters, compared to current practice. Section 2102(b)(5) provides that a principal negotiating objective is to obtain wider application of the principle of transparency through: increased and more timely public access to information on trade issues and activities of international trade institutions; increased openness in the WTO and other trade fora, including with regard to dispute settlement and investment; and increased and more timely public access to all notifications and supporting documentation submitted by WTO parties. The law contains additional transparency provisions for the principal negotiating objective on investment. Further, with respect to transparency, the Trade Act includes a principal negotiating objective on regulatory practices, addressing the use of government practices to provide a competitive advantage for domestic producers, service providers, or investors. The goal of this provision is to lessen the use of regulations for the purpose of reducing market access for U.S. goods, services or investments. This objective calls for U.S. negotiators "to achieve increased transparency and opportunity for the participation of affected parties in the development of regulations" (Section 2102(b)(8)). Such an approach seemingly would benefit both environmental interests and U.S. business. Additionally, the objective is "to require that proposed regulations be based on sound science, cost-benefit analyses, risk assessment, or other objective evidence." The inclusion of this objective drew some criticism from environmental groups that called for language that would protect the ability of federal, state, and local governments to take precautionary measures against risks in cases where scientific or other knowledge may be suggestive but incomplete. However, proponents of the objective argued that, on the other hand, without such disciplines, regulations can too easily be used to create barriers to trade. In addition to negotiating objectives, the Trade Act requires the President to promote certain priorities "in order to address and maintain U.S. competitiveness in the global economy" (Section 2102(c)). The Senate Finance Committee report accompanying H.R. 3005 ( S.Rept. 107-139 ), explained that the priorities are not negotiating objectives themselves, but that they "should inform trade negotiations or be pursued parallel to trade negotiations." Among these priorities, the Act contains several environment-relevant provisions. Specifically, the President must: (1) seek to establish consultative mechanisms to strengthen U.S. trading partners' capacity to develop and implement standards for protecting the environment and human health based on sound science, and to report to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance; (2) conduct environmental reviews of trade and investment agreements, consistent with Executive Order 13141, and report to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance; (3) take into account other legitimate U.S. domestic objectives including the protection of legitimate health or safety interests and related laws and regulations; and (4) continue to promote consideration of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) and consult with parties to MEAs regarding the consistency of an MEA containing trade measures with existing environmental exceptions under the GATT. In general, the trade negotiating authority provided under the 2002 Trade Act addresses environmental concerns to an unprecedented degree, reflecting the evolving attention to the potential interconnections between trade liberalization and environmental quality and protection efforts. Nonetheless, the Act falls short of the environmental objectives that some Members and interest groups sought. While it is uncertain how the new environment-related objectives may inform trade negotiations during the next several years, it seems likely that the debate on how to address environmental issues in trade negotiations and TPA legislation will continue. Outcomes of investor-state disputes involving challenges to environmental measures may be particularly informative for future TPA deliberations.

During the past decade, environmental issues have received increased attention in trade liberalization negotiations, and the question of how to address such concerns in trade agreements became a key issue in the debate over renewing the President's trade promotion authority (TPA). Under this authority, Congress agrees to consider trade agreements using expedited procedures and to vote up or down, with no amendments. With the Trade Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-210), Congress renewed the President's trade promotion authority. The Act includes more environment-related provisions than previous TPA legislation, and generally follows language contained in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), its environmental side agreement, and the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement. The Act includes negotiating objectives that call for negotiators to ensure that parties do not fail to effectively enforce their environmental laws in a manner affecting trade, and to make such failures subject to dispute settlement. Another objective seeks language in trade agreements committing parties not to weaken environmental laws to attract trade. The Act also calls for greater openness in proceedings related to trade disputes. It does not include an objective to protect environmental measures from challenge by foreign investors, and consequently, the Act lost some support in Congress and from environmental groups. This report discusses the environment-related provisions of the new law. It will be updated as events warrant.

The U.S. government maintains more than 250 diplomatic posts overseas (embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic offices) with approximately 60,000 personnel representing more than 50 government agencies and subagencies. The departments of Defense and State together comprise more than two-thirds of American personnel overseas under chiefs of mission authority—36 percent and 35 percent, respectively. The costs of maintaining staff overseas vary by agency but in general, as OMB has reported, they are high. The Deputy Director of OMB recently testified that the average annual cost of having one full-time direct-hire American family of four in a U.S. embassy is $339,100. Following the 1998 embassy bombings, two high-level independent groups called for the reassessment of overseas staffing levels. The Accountability Review Boards that sent two teams to the region to investigate the bombings concluded that the United States should consider adjusting the size of its overseas presence to reduce security vulnerabilities. Following the Accountability Review Boards’ report, OPAP concluded that some embassies were disproportionately sized and needed staff adjustments to adapt to new foreign policy priorities and reduce security vulnerabilities. The panel recommended creating a permanent interagency committee to develop a methodology to determine the appropriate size and locations of the U.S. overseas presence. OPAP also suggested a series of actions to adjust overseas presence, including relocating some functions to the United States and to regional centers where feasible. However, the State- led interagency committee that was established to respond to OPAP’s recommendations did not produce a standard rightsizing methodology. As we previously reported, the committee did not spend sufficient time at overseas locations to fully assess workload issues or consider alternative ways of doing business. To move the issue forward, in August 2001, the President’s Management Agenda identified rightsizing as one of the administration’s priorities. In addition, the President’s fiscal year 2003 international affairs budget (1) highlighted the importance of making staffing decisions on the basis of mission priorities and costs and (2) directed OMB to analyze agencies’ overseas staffing and operating costs (see app. I for a summary of previous rightsizing initiatives). Although there is general agreement on the need for rightsizing the U.S. overseas presence, there is no consensus on how to do it. As a first step, we developed a framework that includes a set of questions to guide decisions on overseas staffing (see app. II for the set of questions). We identified three critical elements that should be systematically evaluated as part of this framework: (1) physical/technical security of facilities and employees, (2) mission priorities and requirements, and (3) cost of operations. If the evaluation shows problems, such as security risks, decision makers should then consider the feasibility of rightsizing options, including relocating staff or downsizing. On the other hand, evaluations of agencies’ priorities may indicate a need for additional staff at embassies or greater external support from other locations. Figure 1 illustrates the framework’s elements and options. State and other agencies in Washington, D.C., including OMB, could use this framework as a guide for making overseas staffing decisions. For example, ambassadors could use this framework to ensure that embassy staffing is in line with security concerns, mission priorities and requirements, and cost of operations. At the governmentwide level, State and other agencies could apply the framework to free up resources at oversized posts, reallocate limited staffing resources worldwide, and introduce greater accountability into the staffing process. The following sections describe in more detail the three elements of our framework, examples of key questions to consider for each element, and potential rightsizing options. We also include examples of how the questions in the framework were useful for examining rightsizing issues at the U.S. embassy in Paris. The substantial loss of life caused by the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa and the ongoing threats against U.S. diplomatic buildings have heightened concern about the safety of our overseas personnel. State has determined that about 80 percent of embassy and consulate buildings do not fully meet security standards. Although State has a multibillion-dollar plan under way to address security deficiencies around the world, security enhancements cannot bring most existing facilities in line with the desired setback—the distance from public thoroughfares—and related blast protection requirements. Recurring threats to embassies and consulates highlight the importance of rightsizing as a tool to minimize the number of embassy employees at risk. The Accountability Review Boards recommended that the Secretary of State review the security of embassies and consider security in making staffing decisions. We agree that the ability to protect personnel should be a key factor in determining embassy staffing levels. State has prepared a threat assessment and security profile for each embassy, which can be used when assessing staff levels. While chiefs of mission and State have primary responsibility for assessing overseas security needs and allocating security resources, all agencies should consider the risks associated with maintaining staff overseas. The Paris embassy, our case study, illustrates the importance of facility security in determining staffing levels. As at many posts, the facilities in Paris predate current security standards. The Department of State continues to mitigate security limitations by using a variety of physical and technical security countermeasures. That said, none of the embassy’s office buildings meets current standards. The placement and composition of staff overseas must reflect the highest priority goals of U.S. foreign policy. Moreover, the President’s Management Agenda states that U.S. interests are best served by ensuring that the federal government has the right number of people at the right locations overseas. Currently, there is no clear basis on which to evaluate an embassy’s mission and priorities relative to U.S. foreign policy goals. State’s fiscal year 2000-2002 Mission Performance Plan (MPP) process does not require embassies to differentiate among the relative importance of U.S. strategic goals. The Chairman of OPAP testified in May 2002 that no adequate system exists to match the size and composition of the U.S. presence in a given country to the embassy’s priorities. Currently it is difficult to assess whether 700 people are needed at the Paris embassy. For example, the fiscal year 2000-2002 MPP includes 15 of State’s 16 strategic goals, and overall priorities are neither identified nor systematically linked to resources. In recent months, State has revised the MPP process to require each embassy to set five top priorities and link staffing and budgetary requirements to fulfilling these priorities. A successful delineation of mission priorities will complement our rightsizing framework and support future rightsizing efforts to adjust the composition of embassy staff. Embassy workload requirements include influencing policy of other governments, assisting Americans abroad, articulating U.S. policy, handling official visitors, and providing input for various reports and requests from Washington. In 2000, on the basis of a review of six different U.S. embassies, the State-led interagency committee found the perception that Washington’s requirements for reports and other information requests were not prioritized and placed unrealistic demands on staff. We also found this same perception among some offices in Paris. Scrutiny of workload requirements could potentially identify work of low priority such as reporting that has outlived its usefulness. Currently, State monitors and sends incoming requests for reports and inquiries to embassies and consulates, but it rarely refuses requests and leaves the prioritization of workload to the respective embassies and consulates. Washington’s demands on an embassy need to be evaluated in light of how they affect other work requirements and the number of staff needed to meet these requirements. For example, the economics section in Paris reported that Washington-generated requests resulted in missed opportunities for assessing how U.S. private and government interests are affected by the many ongoing changes in the European banking system. The President’s Management Agenda states that there is no mechanism to assess the overall rationale for and effectiveness of where and how many U.S. employees are deployed overseas. Each agency in Washington has its own criteria for assigning staff to U.S. embassies. Some agencies have more flexibility than others in placing staff overseas, and Congress mandates the presence of others. Thorough staffing criteria are useful for determining and reassessing staffing levels and would allow agencies to better justify the number of overseas staff. We found that the criteria to locate staff in Paris vary significantly by agency. Some agencies use detailed staffing models, but most do not. Furthermore, they do not fully consider embassy priorities or the overall workload requirements on the embassy in determining where and how many staff are necessary. Some agencies are entirely focused on the host country, while others have regional responsibilities or function almost entirely outside the country in which they are located. Some agencies have constant interaction with the public, while others require interaction with their government counterparts. Some agencies collaborate with other agencies to support the embassy’s mission, while others act more independently and report directly to Washington. Analyzing where and how agencies conduct their business overseas may lead to possible rightsizing options. For example, the mission of the National Science Foundation involves interaction with persons throughout Europe and Eurasia and therefore raises the question of whether it needs Paris-based staff. The President’s Management Agenda noted that the full costs of sending staff overseas are unknown. The Deputy Director of OMB testified that there is a wide disparity among agencies’ reported costs for a new position overseas. Without comprehensive cost data, decision makers cannot determine the correlation between costs and the work being performed, nor can they assess the short- and long-term costs associated with feasible business alternatives. We agree with the President’s Management Agenda that staffing decisions need to include a full range of factors affecting the value of U.S. presence in a particular country, including the costs of operating the embassy. However, we found no mechanism to provide the ambassador and other decision makers with comprehensive data on all agencies’ costs of operations at an embassy. This lack of consolidated cost data for individual embassies makes linking costs to staffing levels, embassy priorities, and desired outcomes impossible. This is a long-standing management weakness that, according to the President, needs to be corrected. Our work in Paris demonstrates that this embassy is operating without fundamental knowledge and use of comprehensive cost data. State officials concurred that it is difficult to fully record the cost of all agencies overseas because of inconsistent accounting and budgeting systems. Nevertheless, we were able to document an estimated total cost for all agencies operating in France in fiscal year 2001 at more than $100 million. To do this, we developed a template in consultation with State and OMB to capture different categories of operating costs, such as salaries and benefits, and applied the template to each agency at the embassy. Once costs are known, it is important to relate them to the embassy’s performance. This will allow decision makers to (1) assess the relative cost-effectiveness of various program and support functions and (2) make cost-based decisions when setting mission priorities and staffing levels and determining the feasibility of alternative business approaches. With comprehensive data, State and other agencies could make cost-based decisions at the embassy level as well as on a global basis. Analyses of security, mission, and cost may suggest the need for more or fewer staff at an embassy or an adjustment to the overall staff mix. Independent analysis of each element can lead to changes. However, all three elements of the framework need to be considered together to make reasonable decisions regarding staff size. For example, if the security element is considered in isolation and existing facilities are deemed highly vulnerable, managers may first consider adding security enhancements to existing buildings; working with host country law enforcement agencies to increase embassy protection; reconfiguring existing space to accommodate more people in secure space; and leasing, purchasing, or constructing new buildings. However, consideration of all elements of the framework may suggest additional means for reducing security vulnerabilities, such as reducing the total number of staff. Our framework encourages consideration of a full range of options along with the security, mission, and cost trade-offs. Our framework is consistent with the views of rightsizing experts who have recommended that embassies consider alternative means of fulfilling mission requirements. For example, OPAP concluded that staff reductions should be considered as a means of improving security, and the Chairman of OPAP, in May 2002 testimony, supported elimination of some functions or performing functions from regional centers or the United States.Moreover, President Bush has told U.S. ambassadors that “functions that can be performed by personnel in the U.S. or at regional offices overseas should not be performed at a post.” Our analysis highlights five possible rightsizing options to carry out these goals, but this list is not exhaustive. These suggested options include 1. relocating functions to the United States, 2. relocating functions to regional centers, 3. relocating functions to other locations under chief of mission authority where relocation back to the United States or to regional centers is not practical, 4. purchasing services from the private sector, and 5. changing business practices. Our case study at the Paris embassy illustrates the applicability of these options, which have the potential to reduce the number of vulnerable staff in the embassy buildings. These options may be applicable to as many as 210 positions in Paris. The work of about 120 staff could be relocated to the United States—State already plans to relocate the work of more than 100 of these employees. In addition, the work of about 40 other positions could be handled from other locations in Europe, while more than 50 other positions are commercial in nature and provide services that are available in the private sector. For example: Some functions at the Paris embassy could be relocated to the United States. State is planning to relocate more than 100 budget and finance positions from the Financial Services Center in Paris to State’s financial center in Charleston, South Carolina, by September 2003. In addition, we identified other agencies that perform similar financial functions and could probably be relocated. For example, four Voice of America staff provide payroll services to correspondent bureaus and freelance reporters around the world and would benefit from collocation with State’s Financial Services Center. The Paris embassy could potentially relocate some functions to the regional logistics center in Antwerp, Belgium, and the planned 23-acre secure regional facility in Frankfurt, Germany, which has the capacity for approximately 1,000 people. The Antwerp facility could handle part of the embassy’s extensive warehouse operation, which is currently supported by about 25 people. In addition, some administrative operations at the embassy, such as procurement, could potentially be handled out of the Frankfurt facility. Furthermore, staff at agencies with regional missions could also be moved to Frankfurt. These staff include a National Science Foundation representative who spent approximately 40 percent of his time in 2001 outside of France; four staff who provide budget and finance support to embassies in Africa; and some Secret Service agents who cover eastern Europe, central Asia, and parts of Africa. There are additional positions in Paris that may not need to be in the primary embassy buildings where secure space is at a premium. The primary function of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration representative is to act as a liaison to European space partners. Accomplishing this work may not require retaining office space at the embassy. In fact, the American Battle Monuments Commission has already established a precedent for this, housing about 25 staff in separate office space in a suburb of Paris. In addition, a Department of Justice official works in an office at the French Ministry of Justice. However, dispersing staff raises additional security issues that need to be considered. Given Paris’s modern transportation and communication links and large private-sector service industry, the embassy may be able to purchase services from the private sector, which would reduce the number of full- time staff at risk at the embassy if the services can be performed from another location. We identified as many as 50 positions at the embassy that officials in Washington and Paris agreed are commercial in nature, including painters, electricians, plumbers, and supply clerks. Reengineering business functions could help reduce the size of the Paris embassy. Consolidating inventories at the warehouse could decrease staff workload. For instance, household appliances and furniture are maintained separately by agency with different warehouse staff responsible for different inventories. Purchasing furniture locally for embassies such as Paris could also reduce staffing and other support requirements. Advances in technology, increased use of the Internet, and more flights from the United States may reduce the need for certain full-time permanent staff overseas. Moreover, we have identified opportunities to streamline or reengineer embassy functions to improve State’s operations and reduce administrative staffing requirements, particularly in western Europe, through measures that would reduce residential housing and furniture costs. We reported in March 2001 that State has a number of outmoded and inefficient business processes. Our cost analyses of the U.S. embassy’s housing office in Brussels and the housing support function at the U.S. embassy in London illustrated how reengineering could potentially result in significant savings. To implement the President’s Management Agenda, OMB and State have indicated that they plan to assess staffing requirements, costs, and options at embassies in Europe and Eurasia. As part of this effort, they are attempting to identify staff who could be relocated to the planned regional facility in Frankfurt. Applying our framework in this effort would provide a systematic means of assessing staff levels and considering embassy costs and relocation and other rightsizing options. Furthermore, OMB and State have other initiatives under way that will make it easier to use the framework in the future. For example, to make it easier to consider the costs of the U.S. overseas presence, OMB is gathering data on overseas costs for each agency and the costs of establishing new positions, and is assessing the process by which agencies request funding to assign additional staff overseas. To help assess mission priorities and workload, OMB and State are reviewing how embassies have implemented the revised MPPs, which are designed to more clearly set priorities, and how these plans could be used to determine allocation of embassy resources. We plan to monitor OMB’s progress in implementing the rightsizing initiative and work with it to incorporate comprehensive cost data into the overseas staffing process. Our rightsizing framework was designed to allow decision makers to systematically link embassy staffing levels and requirements to three critical elements of embassy operations—physical security, mission priorities and requirements, and cost. Using our framework’s common set of criteria for making staffing assessments and adjustments would be an important step toward establishing greater accountability and transparency in the overseas staffing process. The key questions of the framework will help decision makers identify the most important factors affecting an embassy’s staffing levels and consider rightsizing options to either add or reduce staff or adjust the staff mix. Rightsizing experts told us that the framework appears applicable to all embassies. Although we have tested it only at the U.S. embassy in Paris and are in the process of refining it, we too believe that the framework can provide guidance for executive branch rightsizing exercises at other embassies. To facilitate the use of a common set of criteria for making staff assessments and adjustments at overseas posts and encourage decision makers to consider security, mission priorities and requirements, and costs, we recommend that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget ensure that our framework is used as a basis for assessing staffing levels in the administration’s rightsizing initiative, starting with its assessments of staffing levels and rightsizing options at U.S. embassies in Europe and Eurasia. OMB and State provided written comments on a draft of this report (see apps. III and IV). OMB said that it appreciated our efforts to develop a rightsizing framework. OMB agreed with the framework’s key elements and options and plans to build upon the framework in examining staffing at all posts within the European and Eurasia Bureau. However, OMB expressed concern regarding whether the GAO methodology can be uniformly applied at all posts worldwide. Nonetheless, OMB noted that it looks forward to working with us and the State Department in using the framework as a starting point to develop a broader methodology that can be applied worldwide. State said that it welcomed our work in developing a framework for rightsizing. State noted the difficulties of previous efforts to develop a methodology, including attempts by the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel and a State-led interagency rightsizing committee. It stated that it has taken steps to regionalize responsibilities in the United States and overseas where appropriate. In addition, State provided technical comments that we have incorporated into this report, as appropriate. To develop the elements of the rightsizing framework and corresponding checklist of suggested questions, we analyzed previous reports on overseas staffing issues, including those of the Accountability Review Boards, OPAP, and the State-led interagency rightsizing committee. We interviewed officials from OMB to discuss the administration’s current rightsizing initiatives in relation to the President’s Management Agenda. We discussed embassy staffing with rightsizing experts, including the Chairman of OPAP and the current and former Undersecretary of State for Management. We also interviewed officials from the Departments of State, Defense, the Treasury, Commerce, Justice, and Agriculture as well as officials from other agencies with personnel in France. To further develop and test the framework, we conducted a case study at the U.S. embassy in Paris. To assess embassy security, we reviewed security reports, interviewed security experts, and made direct observations. To assess missions’ priorities and requirements, we interviewed and collected data from the U.S. Ambassador to France, the Deputy Chief of Mission, and other high-ranking embassy officials as well as officials from more than 35 sections at the Paris embassy. We also interviewed agency officials in Washington, D.C., and in Paris to determine the criteria used by agencies to set staffing levels at the Paris embassy. To assess costs, we interviewed budget and financial management officials from State and collected data on the different categories of operating costs, such as salaries and benefits, from each agency with staff assigned to the Paris embassy. To determine the feasibility of rightsizing actions, we collected and analyzed data associated with (1) relocating certain functions to the United States, regional centers in Europe, or other locations in France and (2) outsourcing or streamlining some functions. We visited State’s regional logistics and procurement offices in Antwerp, Belgium, and Frankfurt, Germany, which have been considered as options for expanded regional operations in Europe. To determine if opportunities exist to outsource functions, we collected and analyzed data on the business and staffing practices of Paris-based businesses, other U.S. embassies in western Europe, and other bilateral diplomatic missions in Paris. We conducted our work between September 2001 and May 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We are sending copies of this report to other interested Members of Congress. We are also sending copies of this report to the Director of OMB and the Secretary of State. Copies will be made available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-4128. Another GAO contact and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix V. Physical/technical security of facilities and employees What is the threat and security profile of the embassy? Has the ability to protect personnel been a factor in determining staffing levels at the embassy? To what extent are existing office buildings secure? Is existing space being optimally utilized? Have all practical options for improving the security of facilities been considered? Do issues involving facility security put the staff at an unacceptable level of risk or limit mission accomplishment? Do security vulnerabilities suggest the need to reduce or relocate staff? What are the staffing levels and mission of each agency? How do agencies determine embassy staffing levels? Is there an adequate justification for the number of employees at each agency compared with the agency’s mission? Is there adequate justification for the number of direct hire personnel devoted to support and administrative operations? What are the priorities of the embassy?Does each agency’s mission reinforce embassy priorities? To what extent are mission priorities not being sufficiently addressed due to staffing limitations or other impediments? To what extent are workload requirements validated and prioritized and is the embassy able to balance them with core functions? Do the activities of any agencies overlap? Given embassy priorities and the staffing profile, are increases in the number of existing staff or additional agency representation needed? To what extent is it necessary for each agency to maintain its current presence in country, given the scope of its responsibilities and its mission? - Could an agency’s mission be pursued in other ways? - Does an agency have regional responsibilities or is its mission entirely focused on the host country? What is the embassy’s total annual operating cost? What are the operating costs for each agency at the embassy? To what extent are agencies considering the full cost of operations in making staffing decisions? To what extent are costs commensurate with overall embassy strategic importance, with agency programs, and with specific products and services? What are the security, mission, and cost implications of relocating certain functions to the United States, regional centers, or to other locations, such as commercial space or host country counterpart agencies? To what extent could agency program and/or routine administrative functions (procurement, logistics, and financial management functions) be handled from a regional center or other locations? Do new technologies and transportation links offer greater opportunities for operational support from other locations? Do the host country and regional environments suggest there are options for doing business differently, that is, are there adequate transportation and communications links and a vibrant private sector? To what extent is it practical to purchase embassy services from the private sector? Does the ratio of support staff to program staff at the embassy suggest opportunities for streamlining? Can functions be reengineered to provide greater efficiencies and reduce requirements for personnel? Are there best practices of other bilateral embassies or private corporations that could be adapted by the U.S. embassy? To what extent are there U.S. or host country legal, policy, or procedural obstacles that may impact the feasibility of rightsizing options? The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter dated July 9, 2002. 1. We did not set priorities for the elements in the framework that appear in this report. As we state on page 9, decision makers need to consider all three elements of the framework together to make reasonable decisions regarding staff size. 2. In the mission priorities and requirements section, the framework includes the question, “To what extent is it necessary for each agency to maintain its current presence in country?” The amount of time that officials spend in country is a key factor needed to answer the question and in this case the location of the National Science Foundation’s representative in Paris warranted further analysis as a possible candidate for rightsizing. The mandate of the National Science Foundation representative is to communicate with bilateral and multilateral counterpart agencies in more than 35 countries in Europe and Eurasia. The representative stated that he could do his job from any location in Europe, as long as he has high-speed internet connectivity. Given security limitations at facilities in Paris and the availability, in the near future, of secure space in Frankfurt, Germany, decision makers should consider these types of positions for relocation. In addition to the person named above, David G. Bernet, Janey Cohen, Chris Hall, Katie Hartsburg, Lynn Moore, and Melissa Pickworth made key contributions to this report.

There have been recurring calls to evaluate and realign, or "rightsize," the number and location of staff at U.S. embassies and consulates and to consider staff reductions to reduce security vulnerabilities. The Office of Management and Budget is implementing this rightsizing initiative by analyzing the U.S. overseas presence and reviewing the staffing allocation process. This report uses a systematic approach to assess overseas workforce size and identifying options for rightsizing, both at the embassy level and for making related decisions worldwide. GAO's framework links staffing levels to the following three critical elements of overseas diplomatic operations: (1) physical/technical security of facilities and employees, (2) mission priorities and requirements, and (3) cost of operations. Unlike an analysis that considers the elements in isolation, GAO's rightsizing framework encourages consideration of a full range of options, along with the security, mission, and cost trade-offs. Policy makers could use this information to decide whether to add, reduce, or change the staff mix at an embassy.

Rupert Murdoch jousted with disgruntled shareholders Friday as the 80-year-old chairman and CEO of News Corp. defended his handling of a phone hacking scandal in Britain and deflected any notion that he plans to step down soon. A protestor dressed as News Corp. CEO Rupert Murdock is seen with protestors in front of Fox Studios in Los Angeles on Friday, Oct 21, 2011. A few dozen people showed up to demonstrate outside Fox Studios... (Associated Press) More than 100 protesters gathered outside the 20th Century Fox studio lot where News Corp. held its annual shareholders meeting. Inside, with his sons Lachlan and James seated before him in the front row, Murdoch parried allegations that he had poor oversight of the company, sometimes cutting off speakers to jab in an insult or dispute a fact. Votes from the shareholders were still being counted in the afternoon but the company said a proposal from the Christian Brothers Investment Services to force the company's chairman to be an independent director had failed. Few had held out any hope they could overcome Murdoch's control of 40 percent of voting shares through a family trust, or the 7 percent stake Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal had almost certainly cast in support of him. "It was pretty perfunctory," said Rev. Seamus Finn, who attended on behalf of the organization. "It was a nice meeting, but it didn't offer much in terms of how they're going to put this behind them." Questions and comments from shareholders focused on the phone-hacking scandal, which caused the company this summer to shutter the tabloid News of the World and drop its $12 billion bid for full control of British Sky Broadcasting. Britons and other people worldwide were outraged to learn that a private investigator hired by the paper had hacked into the cellphone voicemail of 13-year-old Milly Dowler, potentially impeding a police investigation and giving false hope to her family. Dowler was later found to be murdered. The phone hacking scandal has forced the resignation of two of London's top police officers, ousted top executives such as Dow Jones & Co. CEO Les Hinton, and claimed the job of Prime Minister David Cameron's former spin doctor, Andy Coulson, an ex-News of the World editor. The company said in London on Friday that it had agreed to pay 2 million pounds ($3.2 million) to her family and 1 million pounds ($1.6 million) to charities the family will choose. Friday marked the first time Murdoch faced shareholders with small stakes in the company since the scandal broke in July. Outside the studio lot, some demonstrators carried anti-Murdoch signs, including one that stated "Fire the Murdoch Mafia." Another read, "Rich media equals poor democracy." Some of the demonstrators were from an organization that has been staging rallies recently to demand good jobs. Tom Watson, a member of Parliament with Britain's Labour Party, flew to Los Angeles to make a new allegation about covert surveillance techniques by company employees. Watson asked Murdoch if he was aware that a person who had left prison was hired by News Corp.'s British newspaper unit and hacked into the computer of a former army intelligence officer. He later said the incident happened around 2005 and that evidence of the computer hacking is with London's Metropolitan Police. He said it could lead to the discovery of further victims of computer hacking. Watson said he has made the allegation before but it hasn't been widely reported. Watson represented nearly 1,700 non-voting shares for labor group AFL-CIO and got up twice and spoke for a few minutes during the 90-minute meeting. He is been a key driver of a 2 1/2-year probe into phone hacking and alleged police bribery at the company's British newspaper unit. Murdoch said he wasn't aware of the allegation, and board director Viet Dinh said the company would look into it. "I promise you absolutely that we will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this and put it right," Murdoch said. Watson evoked private investigator Glenn Mulcaire, who was jailed in 2007 for eavesdropping on the phones of royal staff. He warned that this investigation could mean more problems ahead for the company. "News Corp. is potentially facing a Mulcaire 2," Watson said. "You haven't told any of your investors about what is to come." Several shareholders took issue with a chart Murdoch put up showing the stock's upbeat performance compared with most media peers since the beginning of the year and since the beginning of July. They said its performance over 10 years or more lagged its peers. Murdoch said the chart was to address criticism that the company had been hurt by the hacking scandal. Edward Mason, secretary of the Ethical Investment Advisory Group, which advises the Church of England's investments, began speaking about News Corp.'s shareholder returns when Murdoch butted in, saying "Your investments haven't been that great, but go on." Stephen Mayne, a journalist and shareholder activist who once worked for News Corp.'s Australian newspapers, protested when Murdoch tried to bring the meeting to a close. "Never before have you attempted to shut it down quite like this," Mayne said. Murdoch retorted: "You had a lady friend who shut you down in the past." Murdoch then got a laugh when he claimed he was being as open and fair as possible in letting critics air their concerns. "We even had Mr. Watson on Fox television this morning," he said. "It's called fair and balanced." Despite the circus-like atmosphere, several large shareholder groups quietly registered their concerns, including Todd Mattley, investment officer for the California Public Employees' Retirement System, which has some $225 billion in assets. Mattley said CalPERS voted its 1.4 million voting shares in favor of the Christian Brothers' proposal demanding an independent chairman. Although he said he knew the vote was "symbolic" he said later, "This is something we've said is a governance best practice." The company also came under renewed fire for its dual-class share system, which allows the Murdochs to control the company despite owning voting shares that account for less than 15 percent of the company's total $44 billion market value. Dinh said the last time the company voted on the dual-share structure was in 2007, when it passed with 77 percent of the votes. News Corp.'s non-voting shares are down about 5 percent from when the scandal broke in early July, although they have been buoyed recently by a $5 billion share buyback plan that is about a third complete. On Friday, News Corp.'s stock rose 35 cents, or 2.1 percent, to close at $17.20. Proxy advisory firm Institutional Shareholder Services had recommended voting out all existing board members, including Murdoch and his sons James and Lachlan. Two other firms, Glass Lewis and Egan-Jones, recommend voting against the sons, among others. Although the vote count hadn't yet been tallied, the company said all of its director nominees had been elected. Jay Eisenhofer, co-lead attorney in a shareholder lawsuit against News Corp. on charges of mishandling the affair, said on a conference call with Watson on Thursday that if even 20 percent of votes are cast against the re-election of Murdoch and his two sons, it would be a victory. That's because that would be nearly half the 53 percent of votes unaffiliated with the family, he said. ___ Associated Press video journalist John Mone contributed to this report. ||||| Rupert Murdoch has been dealt a blow by shareholders who called on the News Corp chairman and his sons to resign from the scandal-torn media empire. At the company's annual meeting in Los Angeles on Friday Murdoch made a defiant and uncompromising address, insisting News Corp's history was the "stuff of legend." However, he was berated by shareholders and some of the world's largest investors voted against his re-election, and that of his sons, to the News Corp board. They also did not approve of the $33m (£21m) he was paid as chairman and chief executive this year. Murdoch owns 12% of the company but controls about 40% of the votes because of News Corp's two classes of shares. But the fact that major investors voted against his re-election and that of his sons and other directors is a major blow for the 80-year-old chairman and chief executive. News Corp plans to release the full details of the vote on Monday. Before the meeting, shareholders told the Guardian that James Murdoch was likely to receive the biggest vote of no confidence. If the votes go against him, it will cast further doubts on his future at News Corp. The youngest Murdoch son is already facing questions about evidence he gave to a parliamentary inquiry into the News of the World hacking scandal and shareholders at Murdoch-controlled BSkyB have called for his resignation. At the meeting Rupert Murdoch said he was "personally determined" to clean up the phone hacking scandal that had led to the closure of the NoW, but said the issue needed to be set in context at a company that had faced "understandable scrutiny and unfair attack". He argued that the business had a famous history – from the time he took over a single newspaper in Adelaide in 1953 – which had to be set against the revelations that several reporters at the NoW had been engaged in hacking into voicemails left for crime victims, their families, public figures and celebrities. Speaking at the start of the company's annual shareholder meeting, Murdoch offered no fresh concessions. With most of the votes in his control, there was no prospect of him or his heir apparent James, being voted off the board. However, the scale of the rebellion was expected to exceed 20% of non-family shareholders. Those attending included Edward Mason, secretary of the ethical investment advisory group of the Church of England, which owns about $6m worth of News Corp shares. "There needs to be decisive action in terms of holding people to account," he said before the event, noting that it was the first time his group had attended a company annual meeting. At the meeting, Murdoch criticised the church's investment track record, describing it as "not that great". Julie Tanner, assistant director of Christian Brothers Investment Services (CBIS), which represents more than 1,000 Catholic institutions worldwide, was the first at the meeting to question Murdoch's track record, saying that the "extraordinary scandals" in the UK required corporate overhaul. Tanner proposed a motion that News Corp appoint an independent chairman, "to empower the board in relation to the Murdoch family", and asked that the company launch a "truly independent investigation" into the phone-hacking allegations, instead of the work by its London-based internal management and standards committee. The Labour MP Tom Watson, a persistent thorn in Murdoch's side, travelled to Los Angeles to attend the AGM. He commented on the "deepest irony" of the opening presentation, which included images of Prince William – whom he alleged had been targeted by former NoW private investigator Glenn Mulcaire – and Kate Middleton, whom he claimed had been targeted by another private investigator employed by the now closed Sunday tabloid, Jonathan Rees. Watson warned News Corp investors that they were facing "Mulcaire 2" in the UK as victims of alleged computer hacking took action against its subsidiary News International. "You haven't told any of your investors what is to come," he told Murdoch, although the News Corp boss insisted that his company was co-operating fully with police inquiries. Watson told Murdoch that he had evidence that the Metropolitan police was investigating computer hacking by private investigators who had worked for the NoW as well as other papers. Murdoch said he had no knowledge of the situation. "What happened a few years ago was absolutely wrong and I have said so, and I have said that we're all ashamed of it," Murdoch said, adding that "recent rumours" Watson mentioned were under investigation by the police. After the meeting, Watson said: "If my concerns are founded then this company is going to experience even more litigation in the future than it faces now." Investors, critics and the press were bussed into the high security event from a parking lot in Century City to the Zanuck Theatre at Fox Studios, where a collection of Oscars were on display outside. Outside about 200 protesters had rallied with signs that read "Stop the Lies" and "News Corp Board Has to Go." Stephen Mayne, an Australian shareholder and long-time critic of Murdoch, said it was an "extraordinarily paranoid" meeting. "I think he's losing it," he commented. "He comes across as a paranoid control freak." A few hours before the meeting began, News Corp confirmed it had reached an agreement to pay the family of murdered teenager Milly Dowler £2m in compensation, with Rupert Murdoch personally donating an additional £1m to six charities. The settlement relates to the hacking of the missing schoolgirl's phone messages by the tabloid after she went missing in March 2002. "Nothing that has been agreed will ever bring back Milly," the Dowler family said. "The only way that a fitting tribute could be agreed was to ensure that a very substantial donation to charity was made in Milly's memory." ||||| Rupert Murdoch and his sons survived a shareholder challenge to their control of News Corp. Following the company's annual meeting in Los Angeles on Friday, News Corp. announced that Murdoch, his sons James and Lachlan, and the remainder of the board had been reelected -- despite calls from some shareholders for their ouster. News Corp. declined to announce the vote tally, saying it would release figures early next week. The vote is expected to be a referendum on Murdoch's stewardship of the $33-billion-a-year conglomerate that owns the Fox broadcast network, Fox News Channel, the 20th Century Fox movie studio, HarperCollins publishing house and such newspapers as the Wall Street Journal. The media company has been under increasing pressure to make dramatic changes to its management structure. Some investors have lobbied to reduce the influence of the 80-year-old Murdoch and his family since a tabloid cell phone hacking scandal in Britain exploded into front-page headlines in July. Operatives for News Corp.'s now-defunct News of the World tabloid illegally eavesdropped on cellphone messages left for members of the royal family, celebrities, soccer stars, British soldiers and crime victims. Murdoch's critics knew that they faced an uphill battle to unseat Murdoch and others on the board. Murdoch and his family control about 40% of the voting shares. A close ally holds an additional 7%. That meant that nearly every other shareholder would have had to vote against Murdoch to topple him. On Friday, about a hundred shareholders attended the meeting in a theater on News Corp.-owned 20th Century Fox's movie studio lot in West Los Angeles. Some expressed support for Murdoch. But several investors demanded that more independent members join the board of directors. Venture capitalist James W. Breyer, 50, a partner at Bay Area-based Accel Partners, was elected to the board as an independent director. Investors, who have long been critical of the company's management structure, were emboldened to lobby for changes in light of the scandal. "We have found the board's response to be inadequate," said Julie Tanner, assistant director of Christian Bros. Investment Services Inc., which made a motion on Friday -- which was defeated -- to break up the job of chairman and chief executive. Murdoch serves as both. Corporate governance experts have long decried News Corp.'s dual-class structure, contending that it provides Murdoch with undue influence to run News Corp. like his own personal fiefdom with little accountability to shareholders. Although Murdoch and his family alone control 40% of the company's voting shares, they own only about 13% of all of the shares outstanding. The dual-class structure -- with Class A and Class B shares -- allows votes only to shareholders who own News Corp. Class B shares. The vast majority of News Corp. investors own Class A shares and do not have a voice in company matters. "It's time to get on the governance high road," said Stephen Mayne, an Australian shareholder who said he spent thousands of dollars to travel to Friday's meeting. Mayne, who previously worked at a Murdoch paper, said: "You should get with the program and embrace a board with more independent board members." But Murdoch was undeterred. "I'm very proud of the culture of this company," he told his critics. "Have there been mistakes made? Yes, and we are putting them right. We will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this and make things right." RELATED: Protesters push for Rupert Murdoch ouster Rupert Murdoch calls Myspace buy a 'huge mistake' Rupert Murdoch spars with critics at News Corp. annual meeting -- Meg James, Joe Flint and Dawn C. Chmielewski Photo: Rupert Murdoch speaks outside a hotel in London where he met the family of slain teenager Milly Dowler on July 15, 2011. Credit: Kirsty Wigglesworth / Associated Press

News Corp's shareholder meeting went pretty much as expected: Rupert Murdoch and sons took plenty of heat but survived a long-shot bid to oust them from control, reports the Los Angeles Times. The tally will be released next week, but given that the Murdoch family controls 40% of voting shares, the outcome hadn't been in much doubt. Still, critics got a chance to vent about Murdoch's stewardship of the conglomerate—which includes Fox News, 20th Century Fox, and the Wall Street Journal—in the wake of the massive phone-hacking scandal in Britain. "You should get with the program and embrace a board with more independent board members," said one Australian shareholder. And British MP Tom Watson warned that another scandal was on the horizon, notes AP, this time involving the hacking of a former army intelligence officer in Britain. Murdoch fended off the criticism: "I'm very proud of the culture of this company," he said. "Have there been mistakes made? Yes, and we are putting them right. We will stop at nothing to get to the bottom of this and make things right." Brit paper the Guardian sees the shareholder criticism as a "major blow" to Murdoch. It also expects son James to have fared the worst in voting.

Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A wounded child walks at a makeshift hospital in the rebel-held town of Douma after being injured in a reported airstrike by government forces on Tuesday, December 23. Douma, located near Damascus, has been under government siege for more than a year, with residents facing dwindling food and medical supplies.The United Nations estimates nearly 200,000 people have been killed in Syria since an uprising in March 2011 spiraled into civil war. Hide Caption 1 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A Christmas tree and a crèche made out of rubble are set up on a square in the, predominantly Christian, government-held Hamidiyeh neighborhood of Homs on Monday, December 22. Hide Caption 2 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Syrian children await medical treatment at a makeshift clinic in the besieged rebel town of Douma, on Sunday, December 21, near Damascus. Hide Caption 3 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A Syrian rebel fighter keeps an eye on government troops in Aleppo, Syria, on Wednesday, December 17. Hide Caption 4 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A man drives his motorcycle through a puddle in Aleppo on Wednesday, November 26. Hide Caption 5 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A Syrian opposition fighter fires at Bashar al-Assad Regime forces in the Handarat district of Aleppo on Thursday, November 20. Hide Caption 6 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Syrian boys play in the ruins of a destroyed building in Aleppo on Tuesday, November 18. Hide Caption 7 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A wounded man is treated at a makeshift hospital in Damascus, Syria, following a reported air strike by government forces on Tuesday, November 11. Hide Caption 8 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Members of the Syrian Civil Defense carry an injured man after an alleged air strike in Aleppo on November 11. Hide Caption 9 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A member of the Syrian Civil Defense walks through a cloud of dust after an alleged air strike by government forces in Aleppo on November 11. Hide Caption 10 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A father cries over his son at a physical therapy center in Eastern al-Ghouta outside Damascus on Thursday, November 6. The boy had his leg tendons cut after he was injured in an airstrike four months before. Hide Caption 11 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A blindfolded man suspected of passing military information to the Syrian government waits to be interrogated by Free Syrian Army fighters Monday, October 6, in Aleppo. Hide Caption 12 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Medics at a field hospital in Douma, Syria, attend to a man who was injured in what activists said were two airstrikes carried out by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Saturday, September 20. Hide Caption 13 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Free Syrian Army fighters rest inside a damaged room in Aleppo on Tuesday, September 16, during what activists said were clashes with forces loyal to al-Assad. Hide Caption 14 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Syrian government forces walk down a street in Halfaya, Syria, after taking the city from rebel forces on Friday, September 12. Hide Caption 15 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Al-Qaeda-linked rebels from Syria gather around vehicles carrying U.N. peacekeepers from Fiji before releasing them Thursday, September 11, in the Golan Heights. The 45 peacekeepers were captured in the Golan Heights after rebels seized control of a border crossing between Syria and the Israeli-occupied territory. Hide Caption 16 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Syrian opposition fighters take position behind sandbags in Aleppo on Thursday, September 11. Hide Caption 17 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Syrians fleeing the violence stand next to their belongings as they attempt to cross into Turkey on Sunday, September 7. Hide Caption 18 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A boy looks at bodies lying outside a hospital after a barrel-bomb attack in Aleppo on Friday, September 5. Hide Caption 19 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A U.N. convoy moves in the buffer zone near the Golan Heights as they are escorted by Syrian rebel fighters near the Syrian village of Jubata Al Khashab on Tuesday, September 2. Hide Caption 20 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Residents of Aleppo remove a body from debris on Friday, August 29, after what activists claim was shelling by forces loyal to al-Assad. Hide Caption 21 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Druze men watch from the Golan Heights side of the Quneitra border with Syria as smoke rises during fighting between rebels and forces loyal to al-Assad on Wednesday, August 27. Hide Caption 22 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – This image was taken during a government guided tour in Mleiha, Syria, one day after Syrian government forces retook the town after a months-long battle with rebels, according to a military source and state television on Friday, August 15. Hide Caption 23 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Residents inspect the rubble of destroyed buildings in Aleppo after Syrian regime helicopters allegedly dropped barrel bombs there on Wednesday, August 13. Hide Caption 24 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Smoke trails over Aleppo following barrel bombs that were allegedly dropped by the Syrian regime on an opposition-controlled area on Monday, August 11. Hide Caption 25 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Photographs of victims of the Bashar al-Assad regime are displayed as a Syrian Army defector known as "Caesar," center, appears in disguise to speak before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in Washington. The briefing on Thursday, July 31, was called "Assad's Killing Machine Exposed: Implications for U.S. Policy." Caesar was apparently a witness to al-Assad's brutality and has smuggled more than 50,000 photographs depicting the torture and execution of more than 10,000 dissidents. Hide Caption 26 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Syrian rebel fighters take up positions behind sandbags in Aleppo on Wednesday, July 30. Hide Caption 27 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – People carry an injured man away from the site of an airstrike, reportedly carried out by Syrian government forces, in Aleppo on Sunday, July 27. Hide Caption 28 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Hide Caption 29 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Rebel fighters execute two men Friday, July 25, in Binnish, Syria. The men reportedly were charged by an Islamic religious court with detonating several car bombs. Hide Caption 30 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A rebel fighter stands on a dust-covered street in Aleppo on Monday, July 21. Hide Caption 31 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A man clears debris at the site of an alleged barrel-bomb attack in Aleppo on Tuesday, July 15. Hide Caption 32 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A woman walks amid debris after an airstrike by government forces July 15 in Aleppo. Hide Caption 33 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – People walk on a dust-filled street after a reported barrel-bomb attack in Aleppo on Monday, July 7. Hide Caption 34 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Apartments and other buildings lie in ruins on Tuesday, June 3, in Aleppo, a city that "has had the life bombed out of it," according to CNN's Nick Paton Walsh. Hide Caption 35 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A man carries a girl injured in a reported barrel-bomb attack by government forces June 3 in Aleppo. Hide Caption 36 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A rebel fighter loads an anti-tank cannon outside Latakia, Syria, on Sunday, June 1. Hide Caption 37 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A rescue worker pulls a girl from rubble in Aleppo on June 1 after reported bombing by government forces. Hide Caption 38 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A giant poster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is seen in Damascus, Syria, on Saturday, May 31, as the capital prepares for presidential elections. Hide Caption 39 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Portraits of al-Assad dominate the cityscape in central Damascus on Tuesday, May 27. Al-Assad is firmly in power three years into the civil war, while the opposition remains weak and fragmented and extremists grow in numbers and influence. Hide Caption 40 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – The father of a 3-month-old girl weeps Monday, May 26, after she was pulled from rubble following a barrel-bomb strike in Aleppo. Hide Caption 41 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A woman stands in a heavily damaged building in Aleppo on May 26. Hide Caption 42 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – An injured man lies in a hospital bed after alleged airstrikes by government forces in Aleppo on Sunday, May 18. Hide Caption 43 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Buildings in Homs, Syria, lie in ruins Saturday, May 10, days after an evacuation truce went into effect. Thousands of displaced residents returned to the city. Hide Caption 44 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Rescuers carry a man wounded by a mine in the Bustan al-Diwan neighborhood of Homs on May 10. Hide Caption 45 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A Syrian woman carries a suitcase along a street in the Juret al-Shayah district of Homs on May 10. Hide Caption 46 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Residents carry their belongings in the al-Hamidieh neighborhood of Homs on May 10. Hide Caption 47 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A woman injured when a mine went off is carried in Homs on May 10. Hide Caption 48 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Residents return to damaged dwellings in Homs on May 10. Hide Caption 49 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Debris lies on a deserted street in Homs on Thursday, May 8. Hide Caption 50 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A mosque is seen through shattered glass in Homs, where an evacuation truce went into effect on Wednesday, May 7. Hide Caption 51 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A wounded man is treated at a makeshift hospital in Aleppo on Sunday, May 4. Hide Caption 52 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Debris rises in what Free Syrian Army fighters said was an operation to strike a checkpoint and remove government forces in Maarat al-Numan, Syria, on Monday, May 5. Hide Caption 53 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A man helps a woman through debris after reported airstrikes by government forces on Thursday, May 1, in the Halak neighborhood of Aleppo. Hide Caption 54 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Syrians gather at the site of reported airstrikes in Aleppo on May 1. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 33 civilians were killed in the attack. Hide Caption 55 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A woman runs after two barrel bombs were thrown, reportedly by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in Aleppo on May 1. Hide Caption 56 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A boy runs in Aleppo on Sunday, April 27, after what activists said were explosive barrels thrown by forces loyal to al-Assad. Hide Caption 57 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Security and emergency medical personnel work at the site of a car bomb explosion Monday, April 14, in the Ekremah neighborhood of Homs. Hide Caption 58 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – In this photo released by the state-run SANA news agency, Syrian forces take positions during clashes with rebels near the town of Rankous, Syria, on Sunday, April 13. Hide Caption 59 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Flames engulf a vehicle following a car bomb Wednesday, April 9, in the Karm al-Loz neighborhood of Homs. Hide Caption 60 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A man carries a child who was found in the rubble of an Aleppo building after it was reportedly bombed by government forces on Monday, March 18. Hide Caption 61 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – An elderly man and a child walk among debris in a residential block of Aleppo on March 18. Hide Caption 62 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A woman with blood on her face carries a child following a reported airstrike by government forces Saturday, March 15, in Aleppo. Hide Caption 63 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – People attempt to comfort a man in Aleppo after a reported airstrike by government forces on Sunday, March 9. Hide Caption 64 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Buildings in Homs lay in ruins on March 9. Hide Caption 65 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Syrian forces fire a cannon and a heavy machine gun loaded on a truck as they fight rebels in the Syrian town of Zara on Saturday, March 8. Hide Caption 66 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A handout photo released by SANA shows Syrian President Bashar al-Assad speaking March 8 during a meeting in Damascus to mark the 51st anniversary of the 1963 revolution, when Baath Party supporters in the Syrian army seized power. Al-Assad said the country will go on with reconciliation efforts along with its fight against terrorism. Hide Caption 67 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Syrians inspect the rubble of destroyed buildings in Aleppo following a reported airstrike by Syrian government forces on Friday, March 7. Hide Caption 68 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – People dig through the rubble of a building in Damascus that was allegedly hit by government airstrikes on Thursday, February 27. Hide Caption 69 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A boy walks ahead of men carrying the body of his mother in Aleppo on Saturday, February 22. According to activists, the woman was killed when explosive barrels were thrown by forces loyal to al-Assad. Hide Caption 70 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A man holds a baby who survived what activists say was an airstrike by al-Assad loyalists Friday, February 14, in Aleppo. Hide Caption 71 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – In this photo provided by the anti-government activist group Aleppo Media Center, Syrian men help survivors out of a building in Aleppo after it was bombed, allegedly by a Syrian regime warplane on Saturday, February 8. Hide Caption 72 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Syrians gather at a site hit by barrel bombs, allegedly dropped by a regime helicopter on the opposition-controlled Mesekin Hananu district of Aleppo on February 8. Hide Caption 73 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – In this handout photo released by the state-run SANA news agency on February 8, civilians wave national flags in Damascus as they take part in a rally in support of President al-Assad. Hide Caption 74 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A man stands next to debris in the road following a reported airstrike by Syrian government forces in Aleppo on February 8. Hide Caption 75 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Medical personnel look for survivors after a reported airstrike in Aleppo on Saturday, February 1. Hide Caption 76 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Syrians carry a dead body following an airstrike on February 1. Hide Caption 77 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A man walks amid debris and dust on January 31. Hide Caption 78 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – An injured man is covered in dust after an airstrike on January 29. Hide Caption 79 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A man tries to fix electrical wires in Aleppo on January 27. Hide Caption 80 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Rebels and civilians check out a crater that activists say resulted from a Syrian government airstrike on an Aleppo bus station on Tuesday, January 21. Hide Caption 81 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Men rush to a site that Syrian government forces reportedly hit in Aleppo on January 21. Hide Caption 82 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – Buildings lie in ruins in Aleppo on Sunday, January 19, after reported air raids by Syrian government planes. Hide Caption 83 of 85 Photos: Photos: Syrian civil war in 2014 Syrian civil war in 2014 – A child collects items from a garbage pile in Douma, northeast of the capital, on Saturday, January 18. Hide Caption 84 of 85 ||||| (Zein Al-Rifai/AFP/Getty Images) The Syrian government officially broke its pledge to get rid of its entire stash of chemical weapons by Sunday - a move that surprised few American officials but raised questions about how the international community can hold Syrian President Bashar al-Assad accountable for violating the United Nations resolution to which he agreed. As the deadline passed and Syria still had 8 percent of its declared chemical weapons in its possession, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said that the United States would continue to press the regime to give up its weapons, but she wouldn't make any predictions about how the international community would punish Syria for the delay. "We're continuing to press through with our international partners for them to meet the deadline," Psaki said Monday - a day after the deadline had passed. Images: The Syrian Conflict in Photos But even if the regime surrenders the rest of its declared chemical weapons stash, monitors from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) must first verify whether or not Assad did, in fact, surrender all the chemical weapons he had before it determines whether or not he complied fully with the deal, which the U.S. and Russia brokered as an alternative to U.S. airstrikes, a senior administration official said. "I never have a reason to believe that Bashar al-Assad tells the truth about anything, but we are not in a position to give a judgment as to whether the declaration is complete or deliberately incomplete, or incomplete but not deliberately so. That's a technical task," the official said. Syria has missed several other deadlines that have prolonged the process until now. All chemical weapons were originally supposed to be out of the country by early February. The deadline for the destruction of the chemical weapons, once surrendered, is June 30. Before the verification work gets underway, Western officials are already citing intelligence that Syria deliberately withheld information on its chemical weapons stockpile, according to Reuters. The Syrian ambassador to the U.N., Bashar Ja'afari, denied that claim to Reuters, and Psaki on Monday underscored that verification process needs to take place before the United States can accuse Assad of deception. "We've never taken the Assad regime at its word, and we will continue to approach this process with our eyes wide open," she said. But there is past precedent for regimes getting away with concealing chemical weapons for years, such as the case with Libya, where the OPCW found in 2012 that the Gaddafi regime had been hiding mustard gas, violating a 2004 commitment to surrender any such weapons, noted Robert Zarate, policy director at the Foreign Policy Initiative. "We shouldn't declare victory yet just because Assad [says that he] has declared all of his chemical weapons," Zarate said. In addition to trying to get all chemical weapons out of Syria, the OPCW was also investigating claims that the Syrian regime attacked civilians with chlorine gas, a toxic chemical that, while not on the list of items Syria had to surrender, would also be also a violation of a separate provision of the U.N. deal, in which Syria signed on to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the use and development of all chemical weapons. OPCW Director-General Ahmet Uzumcu said in a statement Tuesday that its chlorine inspection team will arrive in the country "soon" and that the Syrian government has agreed to provide security in the areas it controls. (The chlorine gas reportedly was used in rebel-held cities). The senior administration official noted that chlorine is harder to detect after its use than chemical weapons like sarin because it doesn't leave the same physical evidence in human tissue and the environment. "That doesn't mean it's undetectable, it just means it's a harder assignment," the official said. The international community is also discussing the processes by which Syria's twelve chemical weapons production facilities can be destroyed, said the OPCW's special coordinator for the Syria mission, Sigrid Kaag, on Monday. The senior administration official said that while the destruction process would be getting off to a late start, it was still possible to do. "It is late, but I don't want to say that it's off the rails," the official said. It is only after all of these processes are complete - the destruction of the chemical weapons and facilities, the determination about the use of chlorine and the resolution of outstanding questions about Assad's declared chemical weapons - that the international community can consider punishing Assad for any violations of the U.N. agreement. But since Assad is already likely guilty of war crimes for using chemical weapons on his own people, additional wrongdoing would just be piled on to his rap sheet, said former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs Ellen Tauscher. "The ink's dry on that one," Tauscher said, referring to the use of chemical weapons. "This would just be adding to the litany of already existing international criminal indictments for The Hague."

Twenty-five children were killed when an elementary school in Syria's largest city was bombed today, opposition activists say. Regime forces dropped barrel bombs—barrels containing a combination of explosives and items like nails—in the opposition stronghold of Aleppo, according to an opposition group; CNN describes gruesome video but can't verify it. The attack wasn't mentioned in state-run news, CNN notes. In other news from Syria: Largely pro-government locations have also been targeted in recent attacks, with 50 killed in civilian areas yesterday, the New York Times reports. Elections are due June 3, but whether they can occur alongside the violence is an open question, the Times notes. Opposition figures have said Bashar al-Assad's victory is a foregone conclusion anyway. Meanwhile, the international Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons says it will soon head to Syria following reported chlorine gas attacks, al Jazeera reports. As of Sunday, the government has missed the due date to get rid of its entire chemical weapons stock; it still holds 8% of the weapons it has declared, ABC News reports. "We’ve never taken the Assad regime at its word, and we will continue to approach this process with our eyes wide open," says a US state department rep.